MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by complainant petitioner aggrieved by orders dated 19.07.2010 and 12.04.2016. By order dated 19.07.2010 in Criminal Case No.368/2010, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, took cognizance against accused-respondents Manoj and Sanjeev for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, and that order has been affirmed by order dated 12.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Jude No.3, Sikar, in Criminal Revision Petition No.71/2012, preferred by complainant-petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for complainant-petitioner has argued that the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the I.P.C. should be taken as continuing offence and that the evidence, especially the result of investigation submitted by the police, itself shows that the accused-respondents came to Fatehpur on the pretext of efforts of reconciliation and there also they did not expressly refer about the mental and physical cruelty accorded to the complainant-petitioner and rather insisted that they would not harass the complainant and her family.
(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the re-visional court was wholly unjustified in not accepting the argument that the offence under Section 498-A was continuing offence and contended that the complainant was residing at Fatehpur after she left the house of the accused. Learned counsel in support of his argument, has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Amarendu Jyoti and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - (2014) 12 SCC 362 and judgment of this court in Varinder Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2011 (3) RLW 1895 (Raj.). It is argued that the offence under Section 498-A was also made out against all the accused-respondents, therefore, the trial court was not justified in taking cognizance only against accused-respondent Manoj and Sanjeev for offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C.;