Below explanation would help you...
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT:
1. Humbly submit, plain reading of charge sheet reveals that defacto complainant, complainant herein, lived with applicant/petitioner (A1) at their matrimonial home in Bangalore City, Karnataka Sate and no part of the alleged allegations happened in Hyderabad, Andra Pradesh State. Further submit that as per charge sheet, alleged allegations happened in Karnataka State only and during the investigation, even without visiting the crime place, proof is enclosed as P-EX-1, i.e., Bangalore City, respondent completed investigation in Andra Pradesh State and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court. The criminal proceedings in CC.No.1280/2008 on the file of this Hon’ble Court are abusing the process of law by non-complying with the sections 177 to 181 and 156 of criminal procedure codes (CrPC) and the charge sheet is not maintainable as described below:
a. As per section 177 of CrPC, the criminal case can be tried only, where cause of action arose and in the present case, as per the charge sheet and as per the complainant the cause of action arose only in Bangalore City i.e., at the matrimonial home of the complainant at Bangalore City, Karnataka State, hence this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to try this case, where it is pending. Further submit that it is admitted version of the complainant in her affidavits submitted in MC.No.145/2009, on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District and in Transfer Petition No.5/2010, on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that both the applicant and the complainant lived only at Bangalore and further submit that the petitioner did not claim that both lived anywhere other than Bangalore City, hence only Bangalore City courts has jurisdiction to try this case. Hence pray this Hon’ble Court to discharge the petitioner on this sole ground. Applicant put reliance on the below list of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.
i. Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs State of M.P and Anr. Reported in 2007 volume-1 SCC 262.
ii. Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another reported in 2004, SCC Crl-2134.
iii. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728
iv. Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 7 Anr in CASE NO: Appeal (crl.) 587 of 2008 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006).
v. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on 10.10.2007.
b. As per section 156 of CrPC, police has the power to investigate any cognizable case, which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Section 156 CrPC read as:
Section 156 of CrPC: Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases:
1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
In present case, plain reading of the charge sheet reveals that alleged allegations were not happened within the territorial jurisdictional limits of kukatpally police station and also provide information that alleged offence happened in the jurisdiction of Bangalore City only. Whereas the kukatpally police furnished the false information in the charge sheet by saying that offence happened in their police station limits and investigated the case in their jurisdiction and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court, is contrary to the provisions of the section 156 of CrPC and charge sheet is not maintainable in law. Applicant put reliance on the below list of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.
i. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728
ii. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on 10.10.2007.
c. Kukatpally police failed to transfer the FIR to the concern police station having the jurisdiction for investigation as per the law. Further submit that in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that Section 170 Cr.P.C specifically provides that if, upon investigation, it appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the Police Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed.
d. Respondent furnished false information in the charge sheet, Para-1, saying alleged allegations happened at Hyderabad whereas the plain reading of the charge sheet reveals that no part of the alleged allegation happened in Hyderabad.
2. Further submit the proceedings of the case in this Hon’ble Court without having jurisdiction would result in miss carriage of justice as described below:
a. Respondent did not investigate the case at its alleged occurrence place, i.e., Bangalore City, Karnataka State.
b. The respondent failed to collect possible eye-witnesses statements and the evidence in support of either complainant or applicant which exists only at Bangalore City.
c. The evidence in support of the accused exists at Bangalore City and police failed to visit crime alleged place and collect the evidences which may destroy upon failing to collect in time.
d. The supporting witnesses for either complainant or petitioner/applicant, includes women, are residents of Bangalore City and applicant is also resident of Bangalore City. Either the applicant or his supporting witnesses does not have any relatives or friends in this area and have threat from the complainant side people.
e. The accused side witnesses may not prefer to travel 700KM that to another state jurisdiction would result in great inconvenience to defend the criminal case and would result in miss carriage of justice.
f. Further submit that accused and their supporting witnesses have life threat in this jurisdiction and would cause great inconvenience to defend the case in this jurisdiction.