- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 27.11.2009, by the order dated 16.01.2010 and by the order dated 19.06.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE first two orders, dated 27.11.2009 and dated 16.01.2010, have been passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. Vide order dated 27.11.2009, the learned Magistrate had decided to frame the charges for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the petitioners. Vide order dated 16.01.2010, the learned Magistrate had formally framed the charges. Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.11.2009 and dated 16.01.2010, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. However, vide order dated 19.06.2010, the learned Judge has confirmed the orders dated 27.11.2009 and dated 16.01.2010 and has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2008, the complainant, Santosh, filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. In the complaint, she has claimed that on 23.03.2007, her marriage was performed with the petitioner in village Gudha Bersal. She has further claimed that after the marriage, the petitioner tortured her for demand of dowry of a motorcycle and cash of Rs.50,000/-. According to her, due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, she was turned out from her matrimonial home by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate sent the aforesaid complaint at police station Jobner. On receiving the complaint, police registered a FIR, FIR No.89/2008, for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 27.11.2009, the learned Magistrate observed that prima facie the case is found to be proved against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.01.2010, the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the charge orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 19.06.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders dated 27.11.2009 and 16.01.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the complainant, Santosh, she was married to the petitioner on 23.03.2007 at village Gudha Bersal. After her marriage, she had gone and stayed with her husband and in-law's at village Khediram Tan Akoda under Police Station Phulera. According to the learned counsel, both the offences had occurred at village Khediram Tan Akoda under Police Station Phulera. Therefore, no offence had occurred at village Gudha Bersal. Hence, the learned trial court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offences. Secondly, the offence under Section 498A IPC is not a continuing one. Therefore, the entire offence under Section 498A IPC was alleged to have been committed at village Khediram Tan Akoda and not at village Gudha Bersal. However, the learned trial court has overlooked this fact. Lastly, while upholding the orders dated 27.11.2009 and dated 16.01.2010, the learned Judge has also overlooked the fact that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not a continuing one. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that according to Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., the court, in whose territorial jurisdiction the property was received, which is the subject matter of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust, the said court would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. According to the complainant, the dowry articles were handed over to the petitioner at village Gudha Bersal, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that he has ample power to try the case. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that it is not necessary that all the offences should be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court trying the case. Even if one of the offences were committed, the trial court would be justified in trying the case. Although it is true that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not a continuing one, although it is true that the said offence was allegedly committed at Village Khediram Tan Akoda and not at village Gudha Bersal, however, considering the provision of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., it is amply clear that the property in dispute was handed over to the petitioner at village Gudha Bersal. Thus, according to Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., the court, where the property was handed over, would have the jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the trial court was certainly justified in framing the charges vide orders dated 27.11.2009 and 16.01.2010.
(3.) THE learned Judge has fairly appreciated the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has correctly held that the learned trial court would certainly have the jurisdiction to try the case. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This petition is, devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed;