9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Application of Sections 177 and 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) in determining jurisdiction of the Court. Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Court based on continuing offence - The case involved a dispute where the complaint alleged ill-treatment and dowry demands by the appellants. - The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, stating that the offence being a continuing one, the Datia Court had jurisdiction. - The High Court's decision was based on distinguishing a previous case and interpreting the term "continuing offence." - The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code to determine jurisdiction. - The Court referred to previous judgments to define a continuing offence as one that persists until the rule is obeyed or complied with. - It was emphasized that the offence cannot be considered continuing solely because the complainant left her matrimonial home. Issue 2: Interpretation of "ordinarily" in Section 177 and 178 of the Code - The Court discussed the term "ordinarily" in Section 177 and 178, which determines the local jurisdiction of the Court. - Section 178 allows for inquiry or trial in multiple local areas in cases of uncertainty or continuing offences. - Previous judgments were cited to explain the application of Clause (c) of Section 178 in cases of continuing offences. - The Court differentiated cases where the offence was committed in different local areas and where it was a continuing offence. Conclusion: - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the transfer of the criminal case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. - The Court also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur to issue notice to the complainant and accommodate her in the hearing dates. - The appeal was allowed with the specified directions to ensure justice and proper jurisdiction in the case.
|
