- (1.) The petitioner, Gautam Prasad Chandoliya, has challenged the order dated 10.06.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.23, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge [Fast Track], No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and has upheld the order dated 10.06.2010.
(2.) Mr. Ashvin Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that although a plea with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the case was raised, both before the learned Magistrate and before the learned Judge, neither of them have expressed any opinion about the said contention.
(3.) Secondly, according to the complainant-wife, in her complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, she has categorically stated that the acts of the cruelty were done by the petitioner, either in Baroda [Gujarat], in Nimach [Madhya Pradesh] or in Kota [Rajasthan]. In her complaint, she does not narrate any fact with regard to any cruelty committed in Jaipur. Moreover, even in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. she does not narrate a single incident of cruelty, which was meeted out to her at Jaipur. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Courts at Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.;