IMPORTANT POINT
Territorial jurisdiction is crucial in criminal proceedings, and charges must be tried in the appropriate court where the offense occurred.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand vs. Anmol Agarwal, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”). By the impugned order, the court discharged the respondent no.2 from the charges under Section 376 IPC for the want of territorial jurisdiction, but observed that the trial of the accused shall proceed under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to the court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The record reveals that the revisionist lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2 on 07.07.2022, under Sections 323, 376, 452, 506 IPC. According to the FIR, the revisionist and the respondent no.2 came close to each other through some social media late in the year 2019. With the consent of their parents on 17.01.2020, the revisionist along with the respondent no.2 visited Nainital. There the respondent no.2 married the victim by filling her hairline with the vermillion and thereafter, established physical relations with her. He continued establishing physical relations with the revisionist on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage, but subsequently, he declined to marry. The FIR records that on 22.05.2022, in the afternoon the respondent no.2 along with some other persons entered into the house of the revisionist; assaulted her and threatened her to life. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet under Section 323, 376, 452, 506 IPC against the respondent no.2 has been filed.

4. By the impugned order, the court below observed that since the acts of rape were committed in Nainital and/or Bareilly, therefore, the court in Udham Singh Nagar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and, accordingly, discharged the respondent no.2 from the charge under Section 376 IPC. By the same order, as stated, the court transferred the trial of the case against respondent no.2 for the offence under Section 452, 323, 506 IPC to the court of Magistrate having competent jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent no.2 established physical relations with the revisionist in Bareilly and Nainital and there were quite frequently meeting in Khatima also.

6. The Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the revisionist, as to whether ever any allegation of rape within the territorial jurisdiction of Udham Singh Nagar was levelled by the revisionist? He would reply in negative.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also submit that the offence under Section 376 IPC may also be tried in the court in District Udham Singh Nagar in view of Section 220 of the Code. He would submit that the acts are so connected, so as to form the same transaction.

8. While passing the impugned order reference has been made to the judgment in the case of P XXX vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 752. In that case, it was the case of the victim that she was raped in Delhi and telephonically threat was extended to her when she was within the territorial jurisdiction of Chamoli. The court at Chamoli had discharged the accused in that case of the offence under Section 376 IPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the prosecution to proceed against the accused in the appropriate court. That order was challenged. Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Section 220 of the Code and in para 46, 47 and 48 observed as follows:-

“46. Thus, in the aforesaid decisions in Mohan Baitha and Anju Chaudhary, this Court has underscored that the expression ‘same transaction’ seems to be having vague underpinnings; and this Court has also pointed out that no formula of universal application c