Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.39 of 2008 1. Subrat Dharmwal S/o Puran Singh Dharmwal, 2. Puran Singh Dharmwal S/o late Sri Khim Singh, 3. Smt. Chitra Dharmwal W/o Puran Singh Dharmwal, All r/0 P-435, Sector 14, Gurgaon Hariyana. … Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2. Mandakini Shah Dharamwal, R/o 2-34, Girish Niwas, Bhotia-Parav, Haldwani, District Nainital. … Opposite Parties Dated: April 7, 2008 Mr. M.S. Pal, learned senior counsel for the revisionists; Mr. Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State, Mr. Pradeep Hairia, learned counsel for respondent no.2. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case no. 1155 of 2006 State vs. Subrat Dharmwal and ors., whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the accused/revisionists moved by them. 2. Brief facts, which emerge out from the record, are that the respondent no.2/ complainant lodged a First Information Report on 27.02.2006 at about 1:00 p.m. in the Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital against the revisionists with the averments inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized on 02.12.2002 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, Delhi and a formal party was organized on 21st Feb. 2003 at the residence of Subrat Dharmwal S/o Puran Singh Dharmwal at P-435 Sector 14, Gurgaon, Hariyana. A sum of Rs. 24 lacs was expended in the marriage. The revisionists, in order to commit cruelty with her, started taunting and harassing her from the beginning. The revisionists took forcibly in their possession all the ornaments and precious clothes of the complainant. She was subjected to cruelty in order to bring Rs. 30 lacs to fulfill their demand of dowry. She was compelled to join a job of Air Hostess for the sake of greedy demand of her in laws. The revisionists took all her earnings by threatening her. When she got pregnant, compelled with the norms adopted by her employer, she left her job but the revisionists got annoyed and she was asked to get aborted. The abortion could not be done, because that was an offence in Dubai. Therefore the revisionists have ousted her from their house and started threatening to her and her parents in telephone. It is alleged in the First Information Report that on 24th Feb. 2006 at about 11:30 p.m. all the three accused/revisionists came to her and her parents welcomed them, but they repeated their demand of dowry. Showing their inability by her parents, the accused persons started tussling with her parents with the threats that if the complainant will not bring Rs. 30 lacs as dowry, they will not let her to live more at Gurgaon. 3. Accordingly a case for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 506, 406 I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused/revisionists. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted a charge sheet before the Trial Court. And the Trial Court after perusal of the police papers available on the record took cognizance of the matter and issued summons against the accused/revisionists. 4. The accused/revisionist at the stage of framing of charges, moved application stating therein that the Trial Court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani) has no jurisdiction, at all, to try and hear the case; as the contents of the First Information state-away show that the incident had arisen in Arab country and at Gurgaon (State of Hariyana). It is further submitted that the last paragraph of the First Information Report has been scribed merely for entertaining the incident happened to be at Haldwani. It is further stated that it is completely false allegation that the accused/ revisionists came in the parental house of the complainant at Haldwani on 24.02.2006 and they repeated their demand of dowry and on showing their inability, they started tussling with her and with her parents and threatened to endanger her life after her returning to Gurgaon. On the contrary refuting the version of the applicant/ revisionists, the prosecution has stated that jurisdiction to try and hear the case exclusively vests with the Trial Court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani). According to the prosecution, the accused persons were continuously demanding a sum of Rs. 30 lacs as dowry from the very beginning when the marriage was solemnized and in order to fulfill their demand, they were committing cruelty to the complainant in different places and in this continuous context on 24.02.2006 on reaching to her parental house at Haldwani the accused persons repeated their demand of dowry and on showing their inability, they started tussling with her and with her parents and threatened her to endanger her life after her returning to Hariyana. The cruelty, harassment and taunting against the victim committed by the accused/ revisionists in order to fulfill their demand of dowry, is not a sudden offence, but it was a continuous act on the part of the accused/revisionists therefore, according to the provisions contained in Section 178 Cr.P.C., wherever the offence of physical and mental cruelty is committed, the court concerned has jurisdiction to try such offence. Considering upon the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court vide his impugned order dated 16.02.2008 has rejected the application of the accused/revisionist and fixed 2.4.2008 for framing of charges. 5. Aggrieved with the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani the accused/ revisionists have come up in the instant revision. 6. The main ground on which the revisionists have assailed the impugned order is that the marriage between revisionist no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, Delhi, therefore, the jurisdiction to try the case vests either in the State of Delhi or Gurgaon (State of Hariyana) or at Dubai. The Trial Court at Haldwani has no jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Before further discussions it would be relevant to mention the mandatory provision of Section 178 Cr.P.C. which relates to place of inquiry or trial:- 178. Place of inquiry or trial-(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. According to sub Section (d) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. it is provided that where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 9. Learned Sr. Counsel for the accused/revisionists argued that the Trial Court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani) has no jurisdiction to try the case crime no. 1233/2006, u/s 498-A, 406, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act lodged against the accused/revisionists, in support of his arguments, he referred Section 177 Cr.P.C. which says that “Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” On the contrary learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that on 24.02.2006 at 11:30 p.m. the accused/ revisionist came in the house of Major General Surendra Sah at his residence ‘Girish Niwas, Bhotia Parao, Haldwai, District Nainital, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani), and the accused/ revisionists have demanded dowry, committed cruelty and threatening to Major General Surendra Sah, Madakini Sah and Prabha Sah committed offence punishable u/s 498-A, 406, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ of The Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that the Trial Court while passing the order impugned has committed no illegality. In this regard he drew attention of the Court to para-7 of the counter affidavit sworn in by Senior Sub Inspector Sri H.B. Sen, Police Station Kotwali, Haldwani in which it is mentioned that the demand of dowry, cruelty and the threats were committed by the accused/ revisionists on 24.02.2006 at about 11:30 p.m. in the house and premises of Major General Surendra Sah at Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital. This fact gets corroboration from the statements of Major General Surendra Sah, Smt. Prabha Sah , Smt. Mandakini Dharmwal and one independent witness Rajendra Kumar Nagarkoti recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer of the case. In his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the witness Major General Surendra Sah has stated that “on 24.02.2006 at 11:30 p.m. he was viewing video, his dog barked, he switched on and saw outside where three persons were standing. He said who is there in response they told Dharmwal. Bringing keys, he came down; Rajender was accompanied with him. All the five persons came inside the house. Just after sitting, they asked whether money has been arranged or not. He inquired which money, they told for conducting M.B.A.; you need not to send your daughter, we will kill. He got angry. They left. Rajender was there. He told him to shut the gate.” Smt. Prabha Sah in her statement has stated that “on the date of occurrence at night, Chitra Dharmwal, Puran Dharmwal and Subrat came to them, Rajender was there in the room. They told if the money has been arranged. They told which money. They replied to conduct M.B.A. When they showed their inability, then they told not to send the girl. They became furious and all the three persons left their home.” The contents of the First Information Report further gets corroboration from the statement of witness Mandakini Shah, who has categorically stated in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that “on 24th Feb. 2006 in the late night Subrat and parents came to her house and they demanded Rs. 30 lacs for conducting M.B.A. course by Subrat and on being refused by her parents they threatened for life. Her father had expended a sum of Rs. 24 lacs in her wedding.” Similarly this fact is also fully supported from the statement of the independent witness, namely Sri Rajendra Kumar Nagarkoti who in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that “on the date of occurrence when the dog barked, then the General switched on, he was accompanied with the General at the gate. Husband of Mandakini and her in laws were standing outside the gate. All the five entered into the house and just after sitting the in laws had asked either money has been arranged or not. Some matter about M.B.A. was being discussed in between the General and in laws. He was there. The General got furious and they left the place. He was told to shut the gate, after his departure.” This witness resides in the neighbourhood of Major General Surendra Sah. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. clearly established this fact that in the continuous process of their demand of dowry the last incident was occurred on 24.02.2006 inside the house of Major General Surendra Sah situated adjacent to the Nainital-Haldwani Road, near Bearshiva School, Haldwani, District Nainital. 10. Besides the aforesaid facts, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has also annexed site plan of the place of occurrence and the inspection note of the place of incident prepared by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, relating to case crime no. 1233/2006, u/s 498-A, 406, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which apparently illustrate that the place of occurrence is inside the house of Retd. Major General Surendra Sah situated adjacent to the Nainital-Haldwani Road, near Bearshiva School, Haldwani and emphasizing upon the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the litigation between the parties is exclusively triable within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned at Haldwani. 11. From the above discussions it is illustrated that the place of occurrence is adjacent to the Nainital-Haldwani Road, near Bearshiva School, Haldwani, District Nainital which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani). Although, as relied by the learned Sr. Counsel for the revisionist that as provided u/s 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed cannot be ignored, but at the same time if Sub Section (d) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. be taken altogether which provides that where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas, then obviously the jurisdiction to try and hear the case in hand vests upon the Court below (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani). 12. I have perused the impugned order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and have also gone through the material available on the record. I do not find any irregularity, illegality, or impropriety in the impugned order. In my opinion, the learned Trial Court, on the basis of the material available on the record, has rightly rejected the application of the accused/ revisionists. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 5th March 2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: