http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  587 of 2008

PETITIONER: Bhura Ram and Ors

RESPONDENT: State of  Rajasthan & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2008

BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T NON-REPORTABLE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 587  OF 2008 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006)

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.  1.              Leave granted. 2.              The complainant Rajeshwari lodged a complaint on 4.9.2001  before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar  against the appellants.  The complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of  Criminal Procedure was sent to the Police Station, Sadar Sri Ganganagar for  investigation on which FIR No. 246 of 2001 was registered against the  appellants for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 147 of the Indian  Penal Code (IPC).   Challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of  learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganga Nagar.  The charges  were framed against the appellants for offences under Sections 498A and  406 IPC.  The appellants made a prayer before the Court that the Court of  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the offences  as the cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the other court.  The  application was rejected.  The Revision Petition before the learned Sessions  Judge, Sri Ganganagar was also rejected.  The High Court dismissed the  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition preferred by the appellants holding  that although the marriage was solemnized at Village Ramsara, Tehsil  Abohar, District Ferozpur, and right from the marriage, the complainant and  her husband Ravindra Kumar were living in Punjab with her in-laws and  her  husband had died, and that she is now residing in Sri Ganganagar District in  Rajasthan along with her maternal relations, but still offence under Section  498A IPC, being a continuing one, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the  ground that it was time barred; and that the offence of cruelty being a  continuing  offence is still continuing with the local area of Rajasthan, where  at present the complainant is living and, therefore, the Additional Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar had jurisdiction to try the case.  The  Court has found that all the allegations regarding the offences charged with  have been committed at the previous residence of the complainant.   3.              It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the  question involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Y.  Abraham Ajith and Others  vs.  Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another,  (2004) 8 SCC 100, wherein this Court has held that cause of action having  arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed,  could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed.   4.              The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant  left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came  to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts  as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab.  The Court at  Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  On the  basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint,  the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the  matter.  As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed.  The complaint be  returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the  appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. 5.              The appeal is accordingly allowed.