|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a woman accused in a blackmail and extortion case, upholding the charges framed against her by a trial court in Una and ruling that courts in Himachal Pradesh have the jurisdiction to try the matter.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Sandeep Sharma rejected the plea filed by Kuljit Kaur alias Shallu, who had challenged an order dated January 20, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, framing charges against her under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 384 (extortion) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The case stems from an FIR registered in December 2020 at Police Station Chintpurni in Una district, based on a complaint filed by the husband of the victim. According to the complaint, the victim, who was undergoing psychiatric treatment, alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by a co-accused, Narender Kumar, in Kurukshetra, Haryana, and subsequently blackmailed using obscene photographs and videos. It was further alleged that Kuljit Kaur, who was working as a trainer at a gym in Kurukshetra, facilitated meetings between the victim and the co-accused and later assisted in blackmailing her. The accused allegedly extorted large sums of money from the victim over a period of time. After investigation, police filed a charge sheet, following which the trial court framed charges against the co-accused under multiple provisions, including rape, and against Kuljit Kaur under conspiracy, extortion and criminal intimidation. The petitioner had sought discharge on the ground that the alleged offences attributed to her were committed in Kurukshetra and, therefore, the Una court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Opposing the plea, the State and the complainant argued that while the alleged sexual assault took place in Haryana, the acts of extortion continued in Himachal Pradesh, where money was transferred through bank accounts located in Una district. The High Court, after examining the material on record, including statements of the victim and bank transaction details, observed that the alleged offences constituted a chain of acts committed across different locations. The court noted that the victim had specifically alleged that the petitioner was involved in arranging meetings and later participated in blackmailing her along with the co-accused. The court held that under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, when an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas or is connected to another offence, it can be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of those areas. It further observed that since the extorted money was received in Himachal Pradesh and the acts of blackmail continued there, the courts in the state were competent to take cognisance of the case. "Even if the initial act occurred outside the state, the subsequent acts of extortion and receipt of money within Himachal Pradesh confer jurisdiction on the courts here," the court observed. The court also noted that the victim had alleged payment of substantial amounts, including cash and bank transfers, and that there was prima facie material to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy. Finding no illegality in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the charges, paving the way for continuation of trial proceedings in the Una court. The ruling reiterates that in cases involving interconnected offences spread across multiple jurisdictions, courts can assume jurisdiction if any part of the offence is committed within their territorial limits. (ANI)
|
