Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 116 (MP)

Ushabai v. Dhananjaya

1994-02-09

R.D.SHUKLA

body1994
JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. Revision No. 105 of 1992 and Misc. Criminal Case No. 975 of 1992, as they arise out of the same judgment and order of the Trial Court against which two separate revisions were filed by both parties before A.S.J., Ujjain. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the mother-in-Jaw of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 is the elder brother and respondent No. 3 is the younger brother of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain with the allegations that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married at Badnagar on 3-5-1984, At the time of marriage properties were given as Stridhan. Thereafter the respondents began to treat her with cruelty and demanded Rs. 25,000/. She was thrown out of the husband's house. She, therefore, went to her parental house. Thereafter her brother and father went to the house of the respondents and demanded the stridhan property, but they refused to return the same. As such they committed criminal breach of trust punishable under Sections 405 and 406 IPC. 3. After making preliminary enquiry the Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons on 14-5-87 itself. After making the appearance in the Court the accused-respondents raised an objection that the Court at Ujjain has no jurisdiction as the alleged misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed at Bhopal and, therefore, the Court at Bhopal has the jurisdiction. 4. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 2-2-89 held that the Bhopal Court had jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court directed the transfer of the case to C.J.M. Bhopal. Two revisions against the said order were filed. One revision No. 33 of 1989 was tiled by the respondents with the assertions that the Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the offence. The other revision No. 21 of 89 was filed by the petitioner with the assertions that the Magistrate bad no power to transfer the case to Bhopal and that the Court at Ujjain had jurisdiction. 5. The revision No. 33 of 1989 filed by the respondents was accepted and the complaint was directed to be dismissed. The other revision No. 21 of 89 was filed by the petitioner with the assertions that the Magistrate bad no power to transfer the case to Bhopal and that the Court at Ujjain had jurisdiction. 5. The revision No. 33 of 1989 filed by the respondents was accepted and the complaint was directed to be dismissed. The revision filed by the petitioner i.e. No. 21 of 89 was also accepted in the operative part to the extent that the Magistrate at Ujjain has no power to transfer the case to Bhopal as the latter Court is not subordinate to the Magistrate at Ujjain. An observation was made in that judgment that the Court at Bhopal had jurisdiction. 6. Now, therefore, a revision petition has been filed i.e. No. 105 of 1992 against the revisional order passed in revision petition No. 33 of so A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge made in Cr. Rev. No. 21 of 1989. 7. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute regarding the stridhan property cannot be taken to be a dispute of civil nature and a criminal action against the same can be initiated by the wife or her relations against the husband and in-laws. He has referred to a case reported in AIR 1985 SC 628 (Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar). Therefore, the complaint could no be dismissed. 8. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 181, Sub-section(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the property was received at Badnagar the Criminal Court at Badnagar had jurisdiction. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed these two petitions, firstly on the ground that it would amount to a second revision and, therefore, it is not maintainable. Reference has been made to a case reported in 1993 SC 1361 (Dharampal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramhari and Ors.) 10. Now, therefore, it will have to be seen firstly whether the revision or the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. 11. Section 397(3) Cr. P.C. bars second revision by the same party. Reference has been made to a case reported in 1993 SC 1361 (Dharampal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramhari and Ors.) 10. Now, therefore, it will have to be seen firstly whether the revision or the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. 11. Section 397(3) Cr. P.C. bars second revision by the same party. Here in this case while passing judgment in the criminal revision No. 33 of 89, learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely dismissed the complaint and, and therefore, the complainant (petitioner in this case) has got a right to file a second revision. As such second revision would be maintainable. The view expressed by the Apex Court in the case referred above it, in no way in conflict so far as the maintainability of the second revision is concerned. 12. The extra-ordinary powers vested in the Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is mainly to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. These powers are to be exercised with restraint. 13. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, it would not be proper to discuss the full facts in detail. Suffice it to say in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1985 SC 628 the criminal complaint about misappropriation of the Stridhan property is maintainable. 14. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows :-- "181. Place of trial in case of certain offences. x x x x x x x x x x (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person." In this case the marriage was performed at Badnagar. The alleged property i.e. Stridhan was handed over to the respondents at Badnagar and, therefore it will be deemed that the property has been received at Badnagar. 15. Though it is true that the property as alleged has been retained at Bhopal, therefore, the Courts at Badnagar and Bhopal both bad jurisdiction in the matter. The alleged property i.e. Stridhan was handed over to the respondents at Badnagar and, therefore it will be deemed that the property has been received at Badnagar. 15. Though it is true that the property as alleged has been retained at Bhopal, therefore, the Courts at Badnagar and Bhopal both bad jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that the complaint was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Ujjain taking it to be that he being the C.J.M., of the District has jurisdiction for the offences arising out of any part of the district. (Badnagar) is a Tahsil of Ujjain District). 16. The cognizance was taken by the C.J.M. Ujjain and rightly so and, therefore, the only course open to the C.J.M. Ujjain was to transfer the case to Badnagar if any objection to the jurisdiction was taken. In the opinion of this Court the observation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the Court at Badnagar or Ujjain had no jurisdiction is wrong and perverse to that extent. 17. As a result the revision is accepted, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to transfer the case to the J.M.F.C. Badnager for the trial and disposal of the case according to law. Since the revision has been accepted no order is required in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The parties are directed to appear before the C.J.M. Ujjain on 1st March, 1994. The lower Court records be sent immediately.