Criminal Misc. No.M.28335 of 2010 v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. S.S.Sudan, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C.PURI, J. Savita wife of Dilbagh Rai and Naveen Kumar have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.117 dated 14.07.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) registered at Police Station Sadhaura District Yamunanagar (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari vide which the application moved by the petitioner for dismissing the complaint was dismissed. Sarita wife of Naveen Kumar got registered FIR No.117 dated
14.07.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sadhaura District Yamunanagar. Criminal Misc. No.M.28335 of 2010 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari has not properly appreciated the facts of the case. It is contended that the complainant is not residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadhaura and as such the Courts at Jagadhari have no jurisdiction. It is contended that the complainant is residing at Hamidpur and on that account Courts at Ambala have only the jurisdiction. I have considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case. This aspect of the case has been elaborately dealt in by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact that the complainant is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station Sadhaura. The merits of the petition has not been touched by the counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments. The point of jurisdiction of Court at Jagadhari is not available to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. October 14, 2010 ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 14 Oct 2010. The bench was K C PURI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.