JUDGMENT
Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA in opposition.
2. The applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. refusing to direct registration of FIR and investigation of the offence.
2. At the time of admission, learned AGA contended that notice be issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Smt. Sujata and Ms. Bandana Preyashi before finally disposing of this application. This is a stage where the FIR has not been registered as yet. Whether the FIR should be registered or not is a matter which is to be decided from the prayer made by the victim complainant. The proposed accused persons (respondents nos.2 and 3, namely, Smt. Sujata and Ms. Bandana Preyashi) have got no right to be heard at this stage. Hearing of accused at a stage on the question as to whether the FIR should be registered against them or not is not sanctified by statute nor is required. Therefore, I do not proposed to issue notice to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are proposed accused which deciding this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court on Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit appended along with this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which is the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehpur. A perusal of said application indicates that the applicant is a DIG Administration Working in Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and is member of Scheduled Tribes. On 8.7.2007 at 5.00 p.m. he started his journey from Sampoorna Kranti Express Train No. 2394 from New Delhi in F-Cabin of AC-1st class Coach. In the said cabin the two proposed accused persons were also travelling. During the journey respondent No. 2 Smt. Sujata introduced respondent No. 3 Ms. Bandana Preyashi to be her sister and herself as the wife of an I.P.S officer of Bihar cadre. The conversation between them started and the applicant informed that he is going to Patna on some official visit and he belongs to Himachal Pradesh. It is further alleged that Smt. Sujata started insisting for change of birth, which was declined by the applicant as he had to do some official work while travelling and had some medical problem with his right ankle as well. It is further alleged that the two ladies got annoyed and the petitioner was addressed by his caste in the conversation between them and they also among themselves, exchanged something in exasperation. After sometime the baby of Smt. Sujata started disturbing the applicant and started playing with the applicant’s mobile phone on which the applicant objected and requested Smt. Sujata to control her child. After sometimes it is alleged, that the child picked up the paper and turned the notes, inked by the applicant. Applicant on this took the child to task which act infuriated Smt. Sujata who being highly agitated started abusing filthily words and uttered derogatory remarks which according to the applicant are “Your Bastard Tribals; Chooti Jaat Ka Scheduled Tribe; Ise Bihar Pahunchne per dekh lenge.” Meanwhile the security aid of the applicant Sri Ramzan ASI/RPSF entered into the cabin to inquire about the dinner. Two more co-passengers standing in passage also witnessed the incident. Applicant felt humiliated because of the utterances and protested against it. At 12.20 a.m. applicant switched on the reading lamp to attain the natures call but was scolded by Smt. Sujata asking him to put off the lamp. The applicant tried to pacify her but was faced with following utterances “Your bloody jungles, Bihar aane wala hai, I will teach you some manners by getting you sent behind the bars.” Applicant then called the coach attendant and on his arrival Smt. Sujata started crying that the applicant has misbehaved with her and in that venture she was joined by applicant No. 2 as well. It is further alleged that out of the two ladies Smt. Sujata forcibly snatched the official mobile phone and identity card of the applicant and did not allow to applicant to go out of the Cabin. Sri S.N. Singh, Coach Attendant, however, got the mobile phone and identity card of the applicant returned to him. It is further alleged that to defame the applicant both ladies got adverse news made in the media both print and visual against the applicant who felt helpless at Patna where those two ladies wielded their powers and influence against him. After completion of his work applicant returned to Delhi and then sent a complaint S.P. Railways, Allahabad, S.H.O. G.R.P. Fatehpur on 13th July under postal Certificate followed by another complaint dated 28th July 2007. He also dispatched the complaint to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and DG/Special Branch Lucknow but no action was taken against the ladies. It is alleged that the accused persons not being a member of SC/ST intentionally insulted and intimidated the applicant with the intention to humiliate him on 8/9th July 2007 within the public view and they also gave false and frivolous information to the public servants who then use their lawful power to the annoyance the member of the SC/ST and resultantly the proposed accused have committed offence under Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 341, 379, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). Wielding the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it was prayed that the FIR be got registered against the accused persons and the investigation be ordered.
4. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur vide his impugned order dated 8.8.2007 rejected the said application by passing a detailed order wherein he has mentioned that against the applicant a case under Section 354 IPC is registered in which even the charge sheet has been submitted. He also recorded a finding that the incident is alleged to be at 1.00 a.m. and at that time the train Sampooma Kranti Express 2394 had reached Sirathu in district Allahabad. He also recorded a finding that the incident occurred inside the AC Coach and not in a public view. Relying upon a Judgment reported in Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General page 439 C.J.M. Fatehpur came to the conclusion that the FIR should have been got registered at Patna. He was of the opinion that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only that court should pass an order for registration of FIR and investigation which has got the jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and holding thus, C.J.M. Fatehpur rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, which order is under challenged in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
5. After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and after going through the averment made in the application it is perceptibly clear that the offence alleged was committed during the course of journey. If any offence is committed during the course of the journey then the FIR can be registered at any place, which falls during the course of the journey. C.J.M. Fatehpur is not right in holding that he had no jurisdiction and the train had reached Sirathu. The incident had occurred during the course of a journey and it started much before Sirathu. The opinion of C.J.M. Fatehpur, therefore, in my view, is not right that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Criminal Procedure Code in Chapter XIII from Section 177 to 189 deals with jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiry and trial. Section 183 Cr.P.C. provides as follows:
183. Office committed on Journey or voyage- when an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage.
6. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that it is not essential for a person to lodge complaint in the Court of origin of journey or the court of its destination. In the present case the journey started from Delhi and ended at Patna and therefore, the applicant was well within his right to lodge a complaint at any intervening district before the competent Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur wrongly interpreted the said provision by holding that the FIR should have been got lodged at Patna. This opinion of CJM is contrary to Section 183 Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this ground alone I set aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2007 passed by CJM Fatehpur on the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.2007 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to CJM Fatehpur to decide the application of the applicant afresh in accordance with law.