Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh in Sessions Case No. 22/2007 framing charges against the accused petitioners as below:- JUDGEMENT_357_LAWS(RAJ)1_2013.htm
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 Savitri filed a written F.I.R. at the P.S. Sandwa on 24.7.2007 alleging interalia that she was married to the petitioner Shashikant on 5.5.1998 at Sujangarh. She alleged that during the course of her married life and between the years 1999 and 2006, she was continuously harassed by the accused petitioners on account of demand of dowry. She further alleged that on 2.1.1999, when she was reading something while sitting on the roof, at that time her mother in- law attacked her and pushed her down from the roof. She fell down and became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was struggling because of her injuries. At that time the accused persons suspecting some serious action against themselves pleaded her not to report the matter to anybody. She was taken to hospital but due to pleadings of the accused to save them for repercussion she did not reveal these facts to anybody. She was discharged from the hospital prematurely due to her father-in-law's influence. She was not provided proper treatment for her injuries on which she sent a letter to her father stating therein all the facts. Upon being informed, her father came to take her back. While leaving the marital home she requested her mother in law for being returned back her ornaments on which her mother in law told her ornaments would be stolen in transit and on this pretext did not return the same to her. Thereafter when her parents requested that she should be taken back to the marital home the accused persons started making illegitimate demand of dowry etc. When her back problems pursuant to her being pushed down by her mother-in-law persisted, her parents took her to a doctor and she was diagnosed with a fracture of her back bone. She gave birth to a female child in her father's house. Her father in law called on 7.5.2000 and demanded money from her father on the pretext that arrangement for construction of a house had to be made as Shashikant (husband) was coming back to the village. Some gold ornaments were also demanded. Thereafter her husband also called and persisted with the demand. She filed a complaint in the Women Cell at Delhi, on which the accused were summoned. They compromised the matter and took her back to Sujangarh on 12.8.2000. Thereafter also, her husband used to beat her in relation to the demand of dowry. She was once pushed down so hard that her back pain recurred. She was admitted in the Army Hospital where the doctors opined that she had to be operated for the fracture in her backbone but the in-laws refused to have treated her medically. She continuously kept on tolerating atrocities of her in-laws but ultimately the sufferings went beyond the limits of her tolerance on which she was forced to file the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered an F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 307, 325 and 120-B I.P.C. and a charge-sheet was filed. The accused were committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh who has framed charges against the accused as mentioned above. The accused petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the instant revision seeking quashing of the charges.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order framing charges on two grounds. The first ground being that the Court at Sujangarh has no jurisdiction to try the case. The second ground is that even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted to be true at the highest, then also the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. which has been framed against the accused is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel submits that as none of the offences allegedly committed upon the complainant have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sujangarh, therefore, the Court at Sujangarh does not have any jurisdiction to try the case. He further submits that the charge framed against the accused for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. is illegal. He contends that the act for which the accused Teeju has been charged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was committed way back in the year 1999 but the complainant did not choose to file any complaint in relation to the said offence for a long period of six years, and therefore, he contends that the charges framed against the accused deserve to be quashed.;