R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, District Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has framed the charges for offences under Section 498-A & 406 IPC and under Section 4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent No.1, Mohammad Ameen and charge for offence under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent No.2, Anwar.
(2.) Mr. Kapil Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that according to Section 177 Cr.PC., an offence is to be tried by the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is. said to have occurred. However, in the present case, no offence has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction falling within the ambit of the Judicial Magistrate, Kekri. Therefore, he is not in a position to try the case. Secondly, according to the complainant-respondent, Smt. Shaheen @ Dilasba, all the acts of cruelty had taken place either at Jaipur where she was residing with her husband, Mohammad Ameen, or at Kapasan where her in-laws' were residing. According to her statement, not a single incident had taken place at her village Jaswantapura which falls within Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer. However, the complainant-respondent has filed her complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kekri. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, Kekri does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Furthermore, In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 597 : AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4286 .
(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned public prosecutor, has contended that according to the complainant-respondent, the petitioner No.1 and complainant had gctten married within the territorial jurisdiction of Kekri Court. Therefore, the complainant was competent to file her complaint before the court at Kekri.;