Judgment:
ORDER
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. Heard on admission.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-9-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in criminal revision No. 278/2005. The said revision was filed against the order dated 1-8-2005 passed in criminal case No. 196-2003 by the ACJM Bemetara.
3. The brief facts are that a criminal complaint under Section 498A, IPC was filed by the complaint in the Court of ACJM, Bemetara. The ACJM took cognizance in the matter and registered the offence and issued notices to the respondents. After appearance, the respondents took an objection that according to the contents of the complaint itself, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bemetara Court and entire cause of action as disclosed in the complaint has arisen In territorial jurisdiction of Mahasamund Court, District Mahasamund, therefore, the Court at Bemetara will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. The aforesaid objection was overruled by the trial Court saying that the complainant was residing at Bemetara and the offences was a continuing offence, therefore, the Court at Bemetara will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Against the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court, the respondents/accused persons had filed the said criminal revision, which was allowed and the revisional Court quashed the proceedings and directed that if the complainant desires, she may file her complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is against this order passed by the revlsional Court, the complainant has filed this criminal revision.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant at length arid have also perused the records of the criminal revision.
6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for Jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in inquires and trials. Section 177 provides for ordinary place of enquiry and trial. It has been provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial in relation to the offences when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed party in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. It has been provided that in all such cases the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, a conjoint reading of these two sections would show that the rule laid down by Section 177 is one of the general applications and governs all criminal trials held under the provisions of the Code, subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code. Whereas Section 178 governs the exceptions as are provided therein.
7. Approving the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1937 Bom 186 Ramnarayan Baburao v. Emperor, the Supreme Court laid down in the matter of Narumal v. State of Bombay : 1960CriLJ1674 that the word 'ordinarily' in Section 177, Criminal P.C. means 'except where provided otherwise in the Code'. The State Legislature is competent to provide for the trial of offences created by its statutes otherwise than is prescribed by Section 177; but it must clearly appear from the relevant provisions of the special statute that a departure from the general principles prescribed by Section 177 is intended.
8. Referring to the decisions rendered in the matter of Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal : 1961CriLJ728 , L.N. Mukherjee v. State of Madras : 1961CriLJ736 , Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla v. Union of India : AIR1963SC1620 and Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar : 2001CriLJ1738 , the Apex Court held in the matter of Y. Abhraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai 2004 AIR SCW 4788 : AIR 2004 SC 4280 that the exception implied by the word 'ordinarily' need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court.
9. Therefore, it is well settled that unless the exceptional circumstances are there as are embodied under Section 178 of Cr.P.C. the jurisdiction to try an offence shall be with the Court within whose local limits, the offence was committed except where provided otherwise in the Code.
10. So far as the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant regarding the offence under Section 498A, IPC being continuing offence, as held by the trial Court is concerned, this cannot be accepted in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi : 1973CriLJ347 , which has been referred to in the matter of Y. Abhraham Ajith (supra) that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which arises out of the failure to obey or comply with rule or its requirement and which invokes a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non compliance occurs or recurs, there is the offence committed.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, if no part of action pertaining to the allegations regarding commission of offence under Section 498A, IPC has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of ACJM, Bemetara, then, the revisional Court was fully justified in saying that said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it has rightly quashed the order passed by the trial Court.
12. There appears to be no illegality in, the order passed by the revisional Court. The revision has no merits. The same is dismissed at the motion stage itself.