Ram Sahai Singh v. State Of U.P.

And Another
Allahabad High Court (May 10, 2022)

CASE NO.

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1198 of 2022

ADVOCATES

Rajiv Dwivedi
Manish Tandon
JUDGES

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav J.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State
and Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
16.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Chitrakoot in Special Session Trial No.36 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Sahai Singh)
arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2018, under Sections 366, 328, 376 (2) (n), 294, 323,
504, 506 IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 6 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot
whereby the application under section
177 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. The prosecution version as adumbrated in the first information report lodged by the
prosecutrix Pratibha Singh on 05.04.2018 regarding an alleged incident of rape by the
revisionist on her on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the
victim came in touch with the revisionist in the year 2012 and the revisionist had helped
her in getting a laptop in government scheme in the year 2012 and since then the
revisionist has been stalking her and used to pass obscene 2remarks. It is further alleged
that on 13.08.2013 at about 01.00 P.M. when she was waiting for Auto outside the college,
the revisionist came and offered her for lift in his Bolero Car and made her sit by his side.
The revisionist then offered her cold drink and after consuming it, she became unconscious
and when she became out of conscious she found herself in a Jungle where the revisionist
raped her. It is further alleged that the revisionist also prepared video clippings and clicked
some photographs and also extended threats of making it viral and continuously kept on

Printed by licensee : Rajeev Gandhi National Law University Page 1 of 3

sexually exploiting her.
4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the
revisionist on 31.05.2018 and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance committed
the case as Sessions Trial No.36 of 2018 vide order dated 25.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved,
the revisionist has preferred an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the court of
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Karvi, Chitrakoot on 14.03.2022, who vide order
dated 14.03.2022 rejected the application filed by the revisionist, hence, this revision.
5. Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned
FIR has been lodged against the revisionist as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the
revisionist against the father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Kotwali Karvi Nagar,
District Chitrakoot in Case Crime No.41 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC. He
has further submitted that the as per FIR the incident alleged to have taken place at
Gramoday University, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) while the FIR has been lodged at Police
Station Karvi, Chitrakoot (U.P.). He has 3further submitted that the charge sheet has been
submitted against the revisionist is also without jurisdiction. The impugned order passed
by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary and also against the provisions of law,
hence, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for
the revisionist has relied upon Section 179 of the Act as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and
another , 2004 (6) Supreme 207.
6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Manish Tandon, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded
under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of committing rape at various
places by the revisionist for the past several years, which exists within the jurisdiction of
Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of Section 178 Cr.P.C., the trial is well maintainable in the
eyes of law. The revisionist is a man of criminal propensities involved in several cases.
During trial, the prosecutrix was also attacked by the revisionist for which an FIR has also
been lodged against the revisionist. He has further submitted that trial court has rightly
rejected the application on legal grounds holding that the application moved under Chapter
XIII, which provides ordinary place of inquiry and trial and reliance has been placed upon
Section 178 Cr.P.C. which deals with place of inquiry or trial. The trial court has clearly
held that though the cause of action shown in the FIR are said to have happened at
different places and the investigation is conducted within the jurisdiction of commission of
crime, which is said to be 4committed at Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh. He has further
submitted that Section 178 Cr.P.C. clearly deals with the situation and held that where
several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having
its jurisdiction, therefore, the trial court has rightly and legally rejected the application
under Section 177 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of
of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another ,
2020 LawSuit (All) 459.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and

Printed by licensee : Rajeev Gandhi National Law University Page 2 of 3

perused the material available on record.
8. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Code") deals with
jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177 to 179 Cr.P.C. are
quoted as under: "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an
offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and
partly in another , or (c) where an offence is a continuing one , and continues to be
committed in more local areas than one , or (d) where it consists of several acts done in
different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over
any of such local areas.
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence 5ensues. When an act is an offence
by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the
offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing
has been done or such consequence has ensued.
9. From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. However, when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was
committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in
another or where an offence is a continuing one , and continues to be committed in more
than one local area and takes place in different local areas as per Section
178 Cr.P.C. the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to
inquire into and try the offence. Section
179 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the
same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing
has been done or such consequence has ensued.
10. In the light of the above, this Court has critically examined the allegations levelled in
the complaint as well as the statement of victim No. 2 recorded by the police under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and found that the offence in
this case is said to have been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas
being Chitrakoot, the court below at Chitrakoot has jurisdiction to proceed with the
criminal case instituted therein.
11. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality 6in the order impugned
passed by the court below. Hence, there is no force in this criminal revision and the same is
hereby dismissed.
12. No order as to costs. Order Date :10.5.2022 Ajeet (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

Printed by licensee : Rajeev Gandhi National Law University Page 3 of 3