M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has arisen like this.
(2.) THE petitioner, Promila Rani, filed a criminal complaint against her ex-husband Virender Kumar respondent, complaining commission of offences under sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Shri G. C Suman, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated June 12, 1936, summoned the accused Virender Kumar as also five others related to Virender Kumar. Virender Kumar preferred a revision petition in the Court of Session, Ludhiana. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated September 8, 1988, under revision, quashed the complaint, taking the view that the Ludhiana Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try such offences. Challenging that order, the petitioner has come up in revision. While this remaining in this Court, learned counsel for the parties took a few adjournments to enable the parties to come to a settlement. Both the parties are here today and have expressed failure in settling the matter. On merits, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, appears to be unexceptionable. However, learned counsel for the parties jointly are of the view, and rightly so, that the complaint should not have been dismissed and rather the learned Magistrate should have been directed by the Court of Session to return the complaint to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court which had territorial jurisdiction, under an endorsement of the Magistrate to that effect. Thus, the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge is modified to this extent that the complaint instead of being ordered to be dismissed now be returned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect in the terms and spirit of section 201, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) THE revision petition partially succeeds to the above extent. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on May 22, 1989. Petition party allowed.;