LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

yogesh (will tell you later)     17 July 2015

Judge decides the issue of territorial jurisdiction on wrong



I am advocate. My previous quashing petition of FIR & chargesheet of 498-A/406 was dismissed by H.C and same by the supreme court of India. I even filed the transfer the Petition in SCI which was also dismissed. The Magistrate then framed the charges of 498-A/406 against me and my family. I challenged the framing of charges of 498-A/406 by Ld JMFC before the court of session ( u/s 397 Crpc) on grounds of territorial jurisdiction as all the alleged cause of action had taken in my home place and the allegations made in FIR/Chargesheet which only reflects the domestic bickering and the allegations has not been coupled with dowry demand

But the session judge dimissed my revsion petition on grounds that Quashing petition was dismissed so this revsion will alos needs to be dismissed and the issue of territorial jurisdiction was also decided against me by wrongly assuming that marriage took place ta girl home town ( FIR/CHARGESHEET CLEARLY STAES THAT MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE AT MY HOME TOWN)

My query is :

1     Whether correction or modification of the order can be filed in the court of session that there is error apparent on records on the basis of which judgment was passed?

2     I am already fighting the case on merits in trail and has been examining the witness but still it pinch that Judge has not decided the issue of territorial jusrsidiction  on the basis of 177 crpc but relied on wrong assumptions. Whether its wise to move to SCI directly by filing S.LP because the High court too affirm its previous orders


 3 Replies


Mr.Advocate,I presume U have done everything in a hurried manner finally got a negative result even in SC.U may have been misled on this aspect.U ssaid U are fighting UR cases on merits,if merits really existed the quash petitions would not have been dismissed outrightly.Going to the Supreme Court should belast resort only if U exaust all UR resources in the lower courts.


Yes you have moved fast and it does not give results.


Preapre proper cross at trial court and you can prove there that the lower court does not have jurisdiction.

Take help of senior advocates .

yogesh (will tell you later)     18 July 2015

Sir I have been moving slowly and Infac I have cross examined soem of the witnesses..I am posting the judgment where the ld Judge has wrongly assumed that marraige took place at girl native place( actually it was held in New Delhi which is salos mentioned in FIR) and MLR filed by girl 2 days clearly showed that there was no vsisble injury..But ld Judge consider that there is injury

"Present: xxxx, counsel for revisionist,

Public Prosecutor for State assisted by

, counsel for complainant.


This revision petition is directed against the order dated

xxxxxxpassed by the court of, learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, xxxxin case No.xxxxxxx titled as State Versus xxxxxxand others, bearing

vide which the accused have been chargesheeted

for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A,406,323 and

506 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on a

complaint was made by levelling allegations of demand of

dowry, misappropriation

of the dowry articles and harassment in

connection with dowry to his daughter wherein he

alleged that his daughter was married to   of

New Delhi on .2005 according to Hindu rites and

ceremonies. He gave jewellery, cash, car and other household

articles in the marriage. It was alleged tha  xxxxx is

subjecting his daughter to physical and mental cruelty. Accused

filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 against his daughter  and in the said

petition he assured the court that he would not be abusive towards her

and he would remain peaceful. Thereafter, his daughter joined her

matrimonial home on 22.10.2010. However, accused again started

torturing her on flimsy grounds. He has withdrawn a sum of



the accounts of his daughter

on different dates. She has two kids, one female of  


other male of about  months.  , his father  and brother    tortured his daughter

mentally and physically and created pressure upon her by putting their

demands of movable and immovable properties such as her salary, cash

reserves, a new car and a residential flat. They turned his daughter out

of her matrimonial home with a threat not to return until the demands

are met. On these facts, a case under Sections 498A,406,506, 323 IPC

was registered in    

3. On the basis of the material available on file, learned Trial

Court framed charges against the revisionists/accused under Sections

498A,406,323 and 506 IPC vide order dated.


4. Aggrieved against order dated  , the revisionists have

come up in revision.

5. I have heard    , counsel for revisionists,

  Public Prosecutor for State assisted by   counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record


6. Counsel for the revisionists/accused argued that neither

FIR/complaint nor the chargesheet

reflects about the date, time and

place of occurrence. The accused is entitled to know with certainty and

accuracy, the exact nature of charge against him. The whole chargesheet

contains unspecific

and omnibus allegations.

7. It is further argued that as per Section 177 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence shall ordinarily be inquired

into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was

committed. As per chargesheet

the alleged allegations have taken

place at   New Delhi. No

part of the allegations has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of

. The revisionists/accused are residing in

. There are no allegations against revisionists/accused that reflect

any demand of dowry and harassment in that connection at


Therefore, the courts at New Delhi have got the jurisdiction to try the

revisionists/accused for the commission of alleged offence. In support

of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the authorities of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as Y.Abraham Ajith and

others Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, Appeal

(Crl.) 904 of 2004 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4573/2003 decided

on 17.8.2004, Manish Ratan and others Versus State of MP and

another, Appeal (Crl.) 210 of 2000 decided on 1.11.2006 and

Bhura Ram and others Versus State of Rajasthan, Appeal(Criminal)

587 of 2008 decided on 2.4.2008. The police has fail to investigate

the place where the alleged allegations had taken place i.e. New Delhi.

The police even did not visit the alleged crime place once and

completed the investigation at and filed chargesheet.

Therefore, the investigation does not comply with the Criminal

Procedure Code. In support of his contention he has placed reliance

upon the authority of the Satvinder Kaur Versus State (Government

of NCT of Delhi), AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3596.

8. It is further argued that the chargesheet

was filed by the

respondent contains only vague allegations. It only reflects the

domestic bickering between petitioner no.1 and complainant's

daughter. There was no material on file to constitute the offence. The

court cannot act as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but

has to consider the basic infirmities etc. in the prosecution case. If the

case is based on the suspicion howsoever grave, the trial Judge is

empowered to discharge the accused. He is not to see whether the trial

will end in conviction or acquittal. In support of his contention he has

placed reliance upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India case titled as Sajjan Kumar Versus Central Bureau of

Investigation, JT 2010 (10) Supreme Court 413.

9. He further argued that the complainant has levelled funny

allegations that his daughter was provided with only one LPG cylinder

and she has to use kerosene oil when the cylinder gets empty. The

allegations levelled in the complaint cannot be construed to be in

connection with dowry. Even the complainant has not alleged that the

alleged harassment was in connection with dowry. The ordinary wear

and tear of the married life has been given a colour of demand of

dowry just to implicate the revisionists/accused in a false case. There is

no allegation of any constant intimidation over demand of dowry. In

support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the authority of

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Savitri Devi Versus

Ramesh Chand and others, 2003 Crl.L.J. 2759. The complainant has

himself has mentioned in his complaint that the articles were gifted in

marriage and there is no allegation that any dowry was ever demanded.

There is also no allegation of entrustment of any dowry to any of the

revisionists/accused. It has even not been alleged that the dowry

articles have been misappropriated.

Therefore, the offence under

Section 406 IPC is not made out.

10. So far as the allegation under Section 323 IPC, it has not been

indicated who has caused bodily pain and on what part of the body.

The time and place has also not been mentioned. The only allegation is

that his daughter was living stressful life with revisionist/accused no.1

due to certain maladjustment. There is no indication that the

complainant's daughter was threatened with injury.

11. Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances

and the law referred to above, no chargesheet

can be framed against

the revisionist/accused.

12. I find no merit in any of the contentions of learned counsel for

the revisionists/accused. The revisionist/  filed

a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

for quashing of the FIR in question before the Hon'ble High Court

. The said petition has been

dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated   2013.

The Hon'ble High Court has observed in its order dated 2013


A perusal of the FIR reveals that it has been

specifically stated therein that   his father

  and his brother  tortured   (daughter of the

complainant) mentally and physically and pressurized

her to fulfill their demands of movable and immovable

properties such as her salary, cash, new car and

residential flat. The said persons assaulted and

threatened to kill   and also to the effect that she

would be thrown out of the matrimonial home.”

It has been further observed that

In the present case, specific allegations have

been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner was also

residing in the same house being the brother of the

husband of  (daughter of the complainant).”


The revisionist/accused   also preferred Special Leave

Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has also been

dismissed vide order date

13. It is also pertinent to mention here that revisionists/accused

also filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

seeking transfer of this case to New Delhi. But the transfer application

was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated

  The perusal of the complaint made by the complainant

and the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations of demand of

dowry, harassment in that connection and of threat in case the demand

is not fulfilled. The complainant in his complaint has specifically

mentioned that  , his father   and

his brother   tortured his daughter mentally and

physically and created pressure upon her by putting their demands of

movable and immovable properties such as her salary, cash reserves, a

new car and a residential flat. The daughter of the complainant was

turned out of the matrimonial home on   with a threat not to

return unless their demands are met, otherwise she will be killed. As

alleged in the complaint the daughter of the complainant was turned

out of the matrimonial home on   and she was medicolegally


examined at  . The complainant

has also placed on file copy of medicolegal

report dated  

showing the injuries/pain toxxxxx daughter of complainant which

further primafacie proves that the complainant's daughter was

subjected to physically assaulted. The complainant has also placed on

file a list of articles which have not yet been recovered, which

primafacie proves that the articles given at the time of marriage have

been misappropriated

by the revisionists/accused.

14. So far as the territorial jurisdiction to try the case for the

alleged offences is concerned; marriage of the revisionist/accused no.1

and the complainant's daughter was solemnised at The dowry

articles were also entrusted to the which

the accused have now misappropriated.

Thus, the part of offence has

been committed in the territorial jurisdiction of. Therefore, the

courts at have got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the

present case. Moreover, the transfer application of the revisionists/

accused has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide

order dated

15. I have gone through the authorities referred to by learned

counsel for the revisionists/accused in cases Y.Abraham Ajith and


others, Manish Ratan and others, Bhura Ram and others,

Satvinder Kaur, Sajjan Kumar and Savitri Devi cases (supra). There

is no dispute with regard to the law laid down in the said authorities,

but the same are of no help to the revisionists/accused.

16. In view of my above discussion, finding no merit in the revision

petition, the same stands dismissed. Trial court file along with a copy

of this judgment be sent back and revision file be consigned to records."


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register