B.N. Shukla, J.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 2412009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in case no. 371 of 2009 as well as charge sheet dated 05122008 arising out of case crime no. 2368 of 2008 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Kotwali Ghazipur District Ghazipur whereby Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
Heard Sri S.K. Dube, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA and perused the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate has not applied its mind in taking cognizance and in routine manner cognizance has been taken. It is further contended that jurisdictional matter is also involved in this case and the learned Magistrate has no power to take cognizance because matter relates to district Farrukhabad and not district Ghazipur. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the revisions in State of Karnataka vs. Pastor P. Raju [2006(56) ACC 497] and PremKumar and others vs. State of Kerala [2009(64)ACC 902]. In the case of Pastor P. Raju (supra) the Apex Court has considered the word "cognizance" and it has been held that cognizance means application of judicial mind by the Magistrate in respect of an offence suspected. It has further been held that "cognizance" has not been defined in Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190 deals how cognizance of the offence will be taken by the Magistrate. For taking any formal action or indeed action of any kind is not required except application of mind by the Magistrate. In case of PremKumar (Supra) Apex court has held that every offence ordinarily be inquired into and tied by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed and if offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another and it is continuing offence then the matter may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
In the impugned order dated 2412009 the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence relating to section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the Magistrate has gone through the documents and then took cognizance. For taking cognizance of the offence Magistrate has to apply its mind whether prima facie case is made out or not. Detail discussion and scrutiny of the case is not required at this stage. From the impugned order it appears that the Magistrate has applied his mind and then passed the order.
Case crime no. 2368 of 2008 was investigated by the police of police station Kotwali Ghazipur. Accused persons are resident of district Farrukhabad but the complainant of the case is resident of district Ghazipur within the circle of police station Kotwali, Ghazipur. F.I.R. was also got lodged at police station Kotwali Ghazipur. There were allegation against the revisionists that they tortured Smt. Poonam Chaturvedi, daughter of the complainant in respect of dowry demand and after threatening left her left at Ghazipur Railway station.
Considering the view of the Apex Court given in the case of Premkumar (Supra), Magistrate at Ghazipur has jurisdiction to take cognizance.
No illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned order. Revision is not maintainable and dismissed.
