- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has set aside the cognizance order dated 16.01.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. THE said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station. THE police registered a FIR, FIR No.78/2006 against the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Police Submitted a challan against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the above mentioned offences before the Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide order dated 16.01.2008, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The respondents moved an application under Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and prayed that the court at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to try the present case. Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. But, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application of the accused respondents and held that the courts at Jaipur do have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The accused respondents preferred a revision petition against the said order before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide its order dated 04.06.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order dated 16.01.2008 and held that the petitioner, if she so desires, she may file a complaint in the Courts of District Bharatpur. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the said order before this Court. The Honourable Court, vide its order dated 27.11.2008, decided the revision petition of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 04.06.2008. This Court directed the learned ADJ (FT) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur that if the accused respondent were to implead the petitioner as party respondent No.2 in the revision petition, then the learned revisional Court should pass the order as per law after hearing both the parties. During the pendency of the revision petition of the petitioner, the accused respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner in the Court of A.D.J. Bayana. The accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5 again filed a revision petition before the A.D.J. (F.T.) No.1 Jaipur City, Jaipur after impleading the petitioner as party-respondent No.2. The learned ADJ, vide its order dated 16.07.2009 allowed the revision petition of the accused respondent and set aside the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.20, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Judge held that the trial Court at Jaipur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the accused respondent. It, further, held that petitioner is free to file her complaint at Bhusawar, District Bahratpur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2009, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.
(3.) MR. Vivek Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has emphasized the fact that, according to the complaint filed by the petitioner, after she had left the matrimonial home and had come back to the parental home at Jaipur, the respondents used to call her and used to demand dowry over the phone. The mere phone conversation would indicate that part of the offence has arisen in Jaipur. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance. Since the said conversation had taken place in Jaipur, the learned Judge, on the other hand, was unjustified in holding that the Court at Jaipur do not have territorial jurisdiction. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner herself claims that she was married on 18.06.2005 at Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. She continued to stay with the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in her matrimonial home from 18.06.2005 and 28.06.2005. According to her, during this period of ten days, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. On 29.06.2005, she left her matrimonial home never to go back. She makes a general vague allegation that over the phone, she was threatened that in case she does not bring the dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- she will not be taken back into the matrimonial home. Interestingly, she does not reveal the person who has made the call. But curiously despite the fact that she claims to be an educated person and that too employed as a teacher, her entire complaint is vague and general in its nature. In the catena of cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has clearly held that under Section 177 Cr.P.C. an offence can be tried only where the cause of action arises. In the present case, the allegation of mental and physical cruelty are levelled and are said to have taken place in Village Kheria Brahmin, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur. Therefore, the actual cause of action has taken place in District Bharatpur. The allegation about the telephone calls, and about the dowry demands are too vague and general to be accepted. ;