IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that criminal jurisdiction is based on the location of the offence, not merely the residence of the complainant.

ORDER :

Maninder S. Bhatti, J.

This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR, dated 4-9-2022 in connection with Crime No. 427/2022 registered at the Police Station, Bilkhiriya District Bhopal and consequential proceedings thereto pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in RCT No. 14258/2022.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the present applicant while stating inter alia, that her marriage with the present applicant was solemnised on 25-2-2008. Thereafter they started living in Gurgaon (Haryana) from 2012 onwards. They also constructed a house at Shyamkunj, Gurgaon. Till 2018 there were instances of torture and thereafter from 2019 onwards, there was physical and mental torture to the respondent No. 2. In the FIR it was further mentioned that just before three months from the date of lodging of the FIR the present applicant left his job and came to Bhopal and started residing there. During that period the respondent No. 2 was residing in Gurgaon. On 26-8-2022 again, the applicant came to Gurgaon and then on 27-8-2022 the applicant manhandled and abused the respondent No. 2.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire FIR as well as the statements of witnesses reveal that none of the offence was committed within the territory of Bhopal. Hence, the FIR at Bhopal was not maintainable, nor any cognizance on the charge-sheet on the basis of the said FIR could have been taken.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as no cause of action accrued within the territorial limits of Bhopal, entire proceedings deserve to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well counsel for the respondent No. 2 have submitted that the present application filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel that there are specific allegations in the FIR and considering the said allegations, no case for interference is made out. It is further contended by the counsel that when the respondent No. 2 was subjected to manhandling, she came back to Bhopal and she was treated by doctors at Bhopal. Therefore, it is contended by the counsel that no case for interference is made out.

6. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Veena Mittal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110 and Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, LAWS (SC) 2019-4-41, decided on 9-4-2019. It is contended by the counsel that trial at Bhopal is also permissible, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 had taken shelter after being thrown out of the house from Gurgaon (Haryana).

7. Heard the submissions and perused the records.

8. A perusal of the record reflects that in the present case the following FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2 at Bhopal in the Police Station, Bilkhiriya vide Crime No. 427/2022 under sections 498-A, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC :

9. A perusal of the FIR reflects that in the entire FIR, there is no mentioning of any of the instances of cruelty at Bhopal. The FIR nowhere discloses that any offence was committed in Bhopal. The statements of witnesses which are available on record further reflect that none of the witnesses has stated that there was cruelty with the respondent No. 2 at Bhopal. Apparently, in the present case, no offence has been committed within the territory of Bhopal.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100 has held in paragraph 13 as under :

“While in civil cases, normally the expression “cause of action” is used, in criminal cases as stated in section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression “cause of a