IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006)
Decided On: 02.04.2008
Appellants: Bhura Ram and Ors.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr.
P.P. Naolekar and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.V. Vishwanathan and Naresh Kumar, Advs
For Respondents/Defendant: Milind Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advs.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Section 156(3); Indian Penal Code - Sections 406 and 498A
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. MANU/SC/0635/2004
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.8.2004 of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Crl. Misc. P. No. 626/2004
Civil – Jurisdiction of Court to try case – Whether a Court where a part of cause of
action did not arise had jurisdiction to try the suit – Held, it was held in Y. Abraham
Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr 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 – Therefore, in the
present case as no part of cause of action arose within limits of court, Magistrate had
no jurisdiction to try the suit. . Appeal allowed.
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
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 inlaws
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 Ors. v. Inspector of
Police, Chennai and Anr. : 2004CriLJ4180 , 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 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