1. The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.537/12 for commission of offence under section 306 and 343/34 of IPC against the petitioner by Police Station Chhola Mandir, Bhopal including other consequential criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

2. Brief facts as per prosecution case, on perusal of the record goes to indicate that one Marg No. 62/12 was registered under section 174 of the Code by Police Station Chhola Mandir, Bhopal in regard to unnatural death of Krishnapal alias Raja Bundela. During inquiry, it was collected that the marriage of Krishnapal was solemnized on 19.2.2007 with Smt. Radha alias Reeta, daughter of one Rajendra Singh Parmar, resident of Shivpuri. It was alleged that Krishnapal was subjected to maltreatment physically as well as mentally by his wife. The detailed discussions were mentioned in the FIR hence need not be proliferated. On 6.9.2012 on being called by his father-in-law Rajendra Singh, Krishnapal (since deceased) along with his friends Prashant and Neelesh reached at Shivpuri in a car. When the car of the deceased passed through the way near front of the residence of the present petitioner, Krishnapal (since deceased) and his friends were restrained by the petitioner and other family members of the wife of Krishnapal and thereafter Krishnapal was illegally confined inside the bungalow of the petitioner where he was also beaten. He was released after four hours. Then Krishnapal returned to his residence at Bhopal and on 7.10.2012 he committed suicide by lying before the running train. During the course of investigation, one suicidal note left by the deceased was also seized by the police from the place of incident. Crime No. 537/12 has been registered for the offence under sections 306 and 342/34 of IPC against Rajendra Singh, Smt. Radha @ Reeta (wife of Krishnapal) and the petitioner Suresh Singh Sikarwar, which is still pending at the stage of investigation.

3. During the course of arguments it is urged by Shri Mody, learned counsel for respondent No.2 that this petition is not maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to pass any kind of order as crime has been registered at Bhopal which place falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Jabalpur.

4. In view of the objection raised above, with the consent of the parties, we take up the matter firstly for consideration on the point of sustainability of the petition by this Court.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.K. Sharma that this objection has also been dealt with earlier and answered in favour of the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2012, therefore, the said issue cannot again be reopened for assailing the maintainability of this petition before this Court.

6. Controverting the submission, learned counsel Shri Mody appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the order in question was passed on the office note behind the back of respondent No.2 and therefore the respondent No.2 could not get an opportunity of hearing of placing his grievance on the subject. Hence, according to the counsel for respondent No.2 the order passed on 20.12.2012 in the absence of respondent No.2 cannot be taken into consideration and the matter requires fresh consideration on this point.

7. In agreement with the contention made by Shri Mody, again, on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, arguments of both the parties are required to be and heard accordingly.

8. Learned counsel Shri Mody submitted that from perusal of the FIR and suicidal note, prima facie it can be seen that some part of offence was committed at Shivpuri which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and some part of offence was committed at Bhopal where territorial jurisdiction lies with Principal Seat at Jabalpur but because FIR h