Point of Law: Section 178 Cr.P.C. clearly deals with the situation and held that where several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having its jurisdiction, therefore, the trial court has rightly and legally rejected the application under Section 177 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chitrakoot in Special Session Trial No. 36 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Sahai Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2018, under Sections 366, 328, 376 (2) (n), 294, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot whereby the application under section 177 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. The prosecution version as adumbrated in the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix Pratibha Singh on 05.04.2018 regarding an alleged incident of rape by the revisionist on her on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the victim came in touch with the revisionist in the year 2012 and the revisionist had helped her in getting a laptop in government scheme in the year 2012 and since then the revisionist has been stalking her and used to pass obscene remarks. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. when she was waiting for Auto outside the college, the revisionist came and offered her for lift in his Bolero Car and made her sit by his side. The revisionist then offered her cold drink and after consuming it, she became unconscious and when she became out of conscious she found herself in a Jungle where the revisionist raped her. It is further alleged that the revisionist also prepared video clippings and clicked some photographs and also extended threats of making it viral and continuously kept on sexually exploiting her.

4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the revisionist on 31.05.2018 and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance committed the case as Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2018 vide order dated 25.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Karvi, Chitrakoot on 14.03.2022, who vide order dated 14.03.2022 rejected the application filed by the revisionist, hence, this revision.

5. Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the revisionist as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the revisionist against the father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Kotwali Karvi Nagar, District Chitrakoot in Case Crime No. 41 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC. He has further submitted that the as per FIR the incident alleged to have taken place at Gramoday University, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) while the FIR has been lodged at Police Station Karvi, Chitrakoot (U.P.). He has further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against the revisionist is also without jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary and also against the provisions of law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon Section 179 of the Act as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, 2004 (6) Supreme 207.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of committing rape at various places by the revisionist for the past several years, which exists within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of Section 178 Cr.P.C. the trial is well maintainable in the eyes of law. The revisionist is a man of criminal prop