M.Cr.C.No.11291/2012 6.2.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sajidulla Khan, counsel for the respondent.
Heard on admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.challenging the proceedings of unregistered case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant has filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In the cross-examination complainant has admitted that she is living at Jabalpur since 8.5.2007 when her husband left her at Jabalpur and a complaint regarding dowry harassment is before 8.5.2007 when she was residing at Katni with her husband.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the certified copy of the cross-examination part of the statement of complainant.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that for an offence punishable under Domestic Violence Act, a complaint can be filed where the complainant (wife) is residing.
He submitted the complete copy of statement of complainant Gurusharan Kaur (PW1).Only she has stated that after three days of her delivery, her husband Harmeet Singh came to Jabalpur and made an allegation that he is not the father of new born child.
The matter of territorial jurisdiction and it can be decided only after perusal of whole statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on 2007(1) M.P.H.T.14(SC).Manish Ratan and others versus State of M.P.and another and 2009 (4) M.P.H.T.175, Jitendra and others versus State of M.P., in which it has been held that territorial jurisdiction for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC lies with the Judicial Magistrate within whose territorial jurisdiction offence has been committed.
In this case, complete documents of the case have not been produced and matter is before the trial Court for recording evidence.
The question of territorial jurisdiction can be raised before the trial Court at the time of arguments for charge.
In the absence of copies of whole of the record and further considering the fact that complainant has already filed a case under provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no relevance at this stage.
It is further important to note that objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has not been raised before the trial Court, therefore the petitioners are directed to raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the trial Court.
The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
(A.K.Sharma) JUDGE ravi