- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the case laws submitted on behalf of the applicant.
(2.) THE instant application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the application are that earlier a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India had been preferred on behalf of the applicant and that petition was dismissed and then the applicant filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, that too was dismissed and then as per direction of the Court, the applicant approached the lower court where the matter was scrutinized. The applicant had challenged the jurisdiction of lower court. The applicant has alleged that the court at Lucknow had no jurisdiction and the matter should not have been initiated at Lucknow. As far as, jurisdiction is concerned, although trial court ruled that Lucknow Court has jurisdiction but in the revision, the revisional court remanded back the matter and asked the trial court to go through the facts mentioned in the complaint and then only form its opinion. The revisional court framed point of determination for decision to lower court and directed it to decide the matter in the light of the issues framed. Trial court again held otherwise holding that court had jurisdiction, therefore, the applicant had no option but to file second revision against that order and this time revisional court has dittoed the finding of trial court. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant had no option except to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to check the abuse of process by courts below. The main question in the petition is that whether the court at Lucknow has jurisdiction or not. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant has vehemently argued that there are scores of rulings of Hon'ble the Apex Court that jurisdiction lies only in a place where cause of action has arosen and occurrence has taken place but here it is admitted fact that the alleged incident has taken place at Patna. The only point alleged by the opposite party is that when she came back to Lucknow, she received telephonic message in which threat has been extended to opposite party -victim that she will be mal -treated, humiliated and she will be reduced to status akin to shoes of mother -in -law and this was the threat advanced by the husband only. As far as other relatives of husband are concerned they have neither threatened nor contacted the victim opposite party. Therefore, firstly, so far as torture is concerned, that was caused by the husband and nobody else because only husband had contacted at telephone and that too when he was at Singapore and in that eventuality, the court at Lucknow, therefore, will have no jurisdiction. Lastly they resided together at Patna and all the relatives of husband too resided at Patna. Therefore, Lucknow court cannot entertain the grievances raised by the opposite party.;