MEHTA, J. - (1.) THE present petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner, who is facing trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 3 (North), Kota, for the offence u/Ss. 498-A and 406 IPC.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate, pleading that there was no jurisdiction vested with the learned Magistrate to try the case because none of the acts as alleged against the accused petitioner constitute any offence at Kota. It was submitted that whatever acts of cruelty were alleged against the accused petitioner had been committed at New Delhi and, as such, the Court at Kota did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The application of the accused petitioner was rejected by the learned Court below vide order dated 8.5.2006. Aggrieved of the said rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. Arguing on the question of lack of jurisdiction, Mr. Syed Manzoor Ali, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the admitted case of the complainant is that after marriage, the spouses lived at New Delhi and lastly, she was turned out of the house of the petitioner at Delhi. He has submitted that even as regards the offence u/S. 406 IPC, though there is no allegation regarding any entrustment to the accused petitioner, but even if the highest allegations of the complainant in her statement were to be accepted, then too there was no allegation either in her own statement or in the statements of any of her witnesses that the accused was entrusted with the ' Stridhan' of the complainant at Kota. Therefore, when no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Kota, the trial of the case could not be conducted at Kota in view of the provisions of Sections 177 to 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the eases of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police (2004(8) SCC 100), Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2008 SC 2666) and Manish Ratan vs. State of M.P. (2007(1) SCC 262). Per contra, Mr. Ravi Kasliwal, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that though the allegations as regards the offence u/S. 498A IPC have been made in relation to the alleged acts of cruelty meted out to the complainant at Delhi, but all ingredients for the offence u/S. 406 IPC are made out which can justify the trial at Kota. He has submitted that once the allegation u/S. 406 IPC was found to be made out then it was the duty of the accused to have delivered the goods at the place where they were entrusted and, therefore, the Court at Kota had the jurisdiction to try the offence. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2010(3) Crimes 160 and the decision of this Court in Kanhalyalal vs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 2008(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. For the sake of convenience it will be necessary to quote the statement of the complainant deposed by her during the course of investigation: JUDGEMENT_2449_RAJLW3_2012Image1.jpg
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid statement discloses that the marriage between the parties took place on 21st May, 2001. The complainant has not stated as to where the marriage took place, though it has been argued that the marriage took place at Kota. Her statement also reveals that certain dowry articles were given to the complainant, but the complainant has specifically stated that" JUDGEMENT_2449_RAJLW3_2012Image2.jpg Thus the statement of the complainant is that she and her husband were having the dowry items jointly at New Delhi. It is not the case of the complainant that she entrusted the dowry items to her husband at Kota, rather the statement reveals that the dowry articles were jointly in possession of both the spouses at New Delhi. Ultimately, the complainant alleges that her brother came to meet her in Delhi on 30.6.2004 and there her husband and her mother-in-law beat her and turned her out of the house and that her dowry articles were retained at Delhi and were not returned despite the demand made therefor. The only conclusion which could be arrived at from the statement of the complainant as well as the statements of other witnesses of the complainant is that the articles of the complainant which were lying in the joint possession of husband and wife were retained by the husband and were not returned despite the demand being made at Delhi. Thus, the act of the accused, even if the same constitutes the offence of Sec. 406 IPC, was committed at Delhi. Analysing the above facts on the tests provided in the light of the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to supra, this Court has no hesitation in arriving to a conclusion that the Court at Kota has no jurisdiction to try the case. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate No.2, North, Kota is directed to return the file to the concerned Investigating Officer, who shall the file to the SHO of the Police Station at New Delhi having jurisdiction for presentation of the same to the Court having jurisdiction. The file shall be accompanied with a copy of this order. The Investigating Officer of the Police Station at Delhi shall intimate the complainant as well as the accused about the date on which the charge sheet is being presented in the Court. ;