- (1.) The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioners while claiming following reliefs:- I. In the interest of justice the record of the Criminal Complaint No.229/13 registered before A.C.J.M. Rajgarh may be called for. II. The order framing charges as well as the complete proceedings initiated against the humble petitioners may kindly be ordered to be quashed, III.The Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed with costs. IV. Any other order this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners, she has no where mentioned that the alleged act of cruelty and criminal breach of trust has been committed by the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that earlier also the complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging the similar allegations pertaining to cruelty and criminal breach of trust however, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No.530/2008 decided on 07.08.2011 has acquitted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 489-A and 406 IPC and, therefore, the present prosecution lunched against the petitioners is barred by the principle of res judicata.
(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Negi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 3 RajLW 2420; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 181 State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain, 1977 AIR(SC) 1680 Shahjad Ali & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 CrLJ 3400 and Venkatapathi Naidu & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., 2008 CrLJ 179. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have argued that in the complaint lodged at the instance of the respondent No.2 it is clearly stated that she was subjected to cruelty after 07.04.2011 and it is also mentioned in the complaint that on 28.11.2012 the petitioners have left her at Rajgarh Bus Stand while demanding dowry and has also refused to return her stridhan. It has also been contended that the earlier the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 in the year 2009 was in relation to the incidents took place up to the year 2009, whereas the present complaint is lodged by the respondent No.2 in relation to the incidents happened after 07.04.2011. It is also contended that since the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty at Rajgarh on 28.11.2012 the criminal court at Rajgarh has all the jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners.;