Improved Allegations Are Immaterial


Full judgment:


Date of Decision: 9-5-2007


Smt. Kamna Chauhan….. Petitioner

Through: Shri. Rajesh Shukla, Advocate


THE STATE (Madhya Pradesh) and Ors…..Respondents

Shri. M. Bhardwaj, Advocate for State.

The instant revision is for impugning the order dated 19th February 2007 passed by the Sessions judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 18/07, by which the learned judge while setting aside the order dated 25.09.06 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 157/05, has directed the trial court to return the challan papers to the police concerned for filing the same before the competent court.

It is submitted by Shri Shukla that this case is based on a report lodged by the petitioner Smt Kamna Chouhan against the respondents no. 2 to 7. On the report, criminal case no 157/05 is pending in the court of JMFC, Gwalior. He has further submitted that during the pendency of the trial an application under section 177 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7 that court at Gwalior had no jurisdiction to try the case. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate but in the revision vide impugned order the application has been allowed by the learned judge and directed the trial court as aforesaid.

Shri Shukla has assailed the impugned order on the ground that during investigation, in the statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., it has been stated by the witnesses that respondent no 7, the husband of the petitioner and respondent no 3, mother-in-law of the petitioner, came to Gwalior along with respondent no 5 and demanded dowry with threat that if it is not paid then they will not keep the petitioner. He has further submitted that she was not heard in the revisional court. He has also submitted that offence under section 498 of IPC is a continuing offence and part of the same has been committed at Gwalior, hence the court at Gwalior has jurisdiction. Shri Shukla has filed a copy of the FIR, in two sheets, lodged by the petitioner which is taken on record.

Shr I Bhardwaj has submitted that no where in the report it has been mentioned by the petitioner that any incident has happened at Gwalior.

On perusal of the copy of the FIR, the contention of Shri Bhardwaj appears correct. There is no allegation in the FIR that at any point of time the aforementioned respondents came at Gwalior, demanded dowry and gave threat as aforesaid. The statements recorded during investigation are not available on the record. As per the contention of Shri Shukla, if during investigation by way of improvement the witnesses have stated about it, those are immaterial for the purpose of jurisdiction in view of the averments mentioned in the FIR. As per FIR all the incidents have happened at Bulandshahar (U.P.).

As observed by the Apex Court in case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another (2004) 8 SCC 100 and in Manish Ratan and others vs. State of M.P. and another (2007) 1 SCC (Crl.) 336, offence under section 498 of IPC is not a continuing offence. The incidents that happened at Bulandshahar and not at Gwalior, the court at Gwalior has no jurisdiction to try the offence as provided under section 177 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned judge has dealt with every aspect in detail. There appears no error, illegality or irregularity in the impugned error. Hence, the revision is dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s