The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate in a dowry cruelty case, holding that jurisdiction existed where the consequence of the offence ensued.
The criminal revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941
CRL.REV.PET. NO.915 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.C. NO.166/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY DATED 17-12-2008
REVISION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :
UNNIKUTTAN NAIR, S/O GOVINDAN NAIR, KALATHIKUZHIYIL (H), KUZHIYAMPADAM, KONDAZHI (POST), THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/STATE :
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI M.S. BREEZ, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET.NO.915 OF 2009 2
O R D E R
Instant revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkancherry.
CRL.REV.PET.NO.915 OF 2009 3
9. In State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal and Anr. [(2003) 11
SCC 126], the Apex Court considering the provisions of Section 179 with reference to the complaint relating to the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, had occasion to hold as under.
“6. The above Section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued.”
CRL.REV.PET.NO.915 OF 2009
4
This petition will stand dismissed.
SD/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE
NS
//TRUE COPY// P.A.. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Judicial First Class Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence when the consequence of the alleged cruelty ensued within its local jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the jurisdiction challenge warrants interference in revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal and Anr.Explained¶26
State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal and Anr. [(2003) 11 SCC 126] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Unnikuttan Nair
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
