Point of Law: Section 177 Cr.P.C. lays down general rule as to jurisdiction of criminal inquiries.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.05.2016 in Criminal Revision No.40/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar whereby order dated 07.12.2012 & 09.01.2013 passed by learned ACJM No.2 Sri Ganganagar in criminal regular Case No.157/2012 emanating from FIR No.4/2012 registered at the Police Station Chunawarh, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC was confirmed.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 06.01.2012 on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2-complainant, Police Station Chunawarh, District Sri Ganganagar registered an FIR wherein it was alleged that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 11.04.2005 and thereafter she was subjected to cruel behavior by her in-laws for demand of dowry and despite Panchayat the demands were continued. On 02.01.2012, she was beaten up by her husband and other relatives to extract ? 1 lac as dowry from parents of the complainant. On the basis of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 498-A and 323 IPC was filed against the present petitioners.

3. Thereafter, learned trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the present petitioners which were challenged before the learned Revisional Court but the revision petition was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment in the case of Bhura Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2008 (3) RLW SC 1924 would submitted that the marriage of complainant and the petitioner No.1 was solemnized in Tehsil Abohar (Punjab) and at the time of incident, the complainant was residing in Tehsil Abohar, wherein she was subjected to so called cruelty as alleged in the her statement. He would further submit that the record clearly indicates that on the day when the alleged incident took place, she was brought to Civil Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on 06.01.2012, wherein Mr. Harvindra Singh, Head Constable of Police Station Sadar Abohar (Punjab) recorded the statement of complainant. After recording of this statement, an FIR was registered at PS Sadar, Abohar and the same was investigated. He further submitted that after this information to Punjab Police, the complainant after legal advice had also registered a case against the present petitioners in Police Station Chunawarh wherein a charge sheet under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC was filed. He would also submitted that two criminal cases from one incident cannot be tried at different places as the same amounts to abuse to process of law. He would further submitted that the statement so recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated that entire incidents were taken place in the jurisdiction of Abohar in the State of Punjab. Thus, the Courts at Sri Ganganagar are not having any jurisdiction to try the offence. He would submitted that Section 177 of Cr.P.C. prescribes for jurisdiction of criminal Courts for the purpose of trial and the trial Court and revisional Court are duty bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioners but both the Courts below have failed in their duties. He would further submitted that no incident of cruelty or alleged beating was taken place in the jurisdiction of Sri Ganganagar. Hence, the invocation of jurisdiction by the Courts below is wholly erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Herein the contentions of petitioners are two fold firstly lack of jurisdiction and secondly two FIRs/ reports of same incident. These were raised before learned trial Court and so before the Revisional Court but relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa vs. Devendra Nath 2005 CRLR (SC) 169 and Sunita Kumari Vs. State of Bihar 2011 CRLR (SC) 400, the Courts below refused to consider the defence of t