R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2007 and by the order dated 23.6.2008. By the former order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed under Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners. By the latter order, the Revisional Court has upheld the order dated 4.4.2007.
(2.) Mr. Mohammed Anees, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 2, Rasida, had lodged a complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. According to the complainant, all the acts of cruelty and criminal breach of trust were committed in Jaipur. However, the complaint has been lodged before the learned Magistrate at Nasirabad. The complaint was sent to the police at Nasirabad for further investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code However, as the offence occurred in Jaipur, the police at Nasirabad does not have the power to investigate the case. Similarly, the Court at Nasirabad does not have the jurisdiction to try the case. Despite this glaring legal lacunae, the learned Magistrate has rejected his application under Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Revisional Court has upheld the said order.
(3.) A bare perusal of F.I.R., which was chalked out on the basis of complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2, clearly shows that the part of the offence was committed at Nasirabad. Even if the details of the offence are not narrated in the F.I.R., it would not dilute the jurisdiction of the Court at Nasirabad to try the case. For, an F.I.R. is not meant to be encyclopedic in its scope. Therefore, the contentiory'raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction is without any merit.;