IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.520 of 2006 MOHMMAD REYAZ @ GULJAR ALI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 23.03.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged order dated 8.5.2006, passed by S D J M, Sasaram in complaint case no. 379 of 2003, Tr no. 773 of 2006, whereby and whereunder he has rejected the petition dated 31.3.2006 filed by the petitioner for dismissing complaint aforesaid on the ground that they did not file the same in accordance with directions of the leaned sessions judge, passed in Cr. Rev No. 56 of 2006. 3. Facts of the case in short are that one Rukshana Khatoon filed the aforesaid complaint under section 498A of the I.P.C. in the court of the CJM, Rohtas against petitioners. The learned magistrate after enquiry took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 26.8.2003 and summoned the petitioner to face trial. Thereafter, he challenged the aforesaid order in revision before the Sessions judge being Cr Rev no. 57 of 2006. In the aforesaid revision, the petitioner also challenged that the instant case could not proceed in the district of Rohtas as entire cause of action took place in Sonbhadra district of Uttar Pradesh. The revisional court by order dated 27.3.2006 observed that it would be better for the petitioners to raise such plea at the stage of appearance of the accused –petitioners and if raised, then the leaned court below should consider the case of the petitioners according to its merit and dispose of the same according to - 2 - law. 4. Petitioners instead of appearing before the court below in person, filed a petition there through their counsel raising objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of Sasaram court to try the offence. Learned CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram by order dated 8.5.2006 rejected the petition of petitioners observing that they ought to have appeared physically pursuant to the order of the revisional court, then file application as directed by the Sessions judge wherein they could have raised plea regarding jurisdiction of the Court to try the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the facts of the case no cause of action took place at Sasaram, rather entire occurrence took place in the district of Sonbhadra in the State of Uttar Pradesh which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court below and on this score alone the entire criminal prosecution and the impugned order vitiates. It is further submitted that it was not necessary for them to appear before the Court in person, so they filed application through their lawyer but the Court rejected the same merely on the ground that they did not file the application by physically appearing in the Court. 6. It appears that the petitioners in fact had moved the Sessions judge against order dated 26.8.2003 taking cognizance in revision. It appears that petitioners challenged the order of cognizance also on ground of territorial jurisdiction. Leaned Sessions judge disposed of the petition with observations that the petitioners may raise these points at stage of appearance. The stage of appearance - 3 - warrants physical presence of the accused unless he has been exempted under section 205 Cr.P.C. 7. As the petitioners have not challenged order of the Session’s court directing them to take the plea at stage of appearance, the petitioners were bound to appear in person for putting their objections. It also goes against the petitioners that though cognizance has been taken against them in 2003, they have neither taken bail nor appeared before the magistrate. 8. Thus this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, dated 8.5.2006, rejecting the application of petitioners as they did not file their petition without appearance as decided by the revisional court. The revision application is dismissed accordingly. In case, petitioners appears in person and file any application before it, the same would be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court, subject to provisions of bail. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).