Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 52 (UTT)

Amit Agarwal v. State of Uttaranchal

2003-04-19

IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Irshand Hussain, J. : This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ior short 'Code') has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.5.2002 in case crime no. 179 of 2002, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Ramnagar, District Nainital and the summoning orders dated 2.7.2002 and 26.7.2002 passed by C.J.M., Nainital in criminal case no. 1459 of 2002. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for applicants and Sri V. K. Bisht, learned for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. 3. The charge-sheet which is sought to be quashed is the outcome of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2 Smt. Roochi Agarwal on 11.4.2002 at R S. Ramnagar, district Nainital against her husband and other family members of the husband, petitioners nos. 2 to 5. The allegations as spelt out in the F.I.R. are that complainant had been subjected to cruelty for and in connection with dowry demand while she had been staying with her husband and other family members in their house situate in town Bilrlspur, district Rampur. The parents of the complainant however . reside in a town of Ramnagar, district Nainital in the State of Uttaranchal. On the basis of the F.I.R. case under sections 498-A/323/506 of the IPC. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act" as registered and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet dated 28.5.2002 was submitted against the petitioners. 4. Petitioners have raised a plea that' since the marriage was solemnized in the town of Bilaspur district Rampur and entire set of incident is alleged to have taken place at Bilaspur itself, the charge-sheet submitted is without jurisdiction and also that the court at Nainital has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and try this case. Other pleas were also raised to assail the legality and propriety of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. 5. Considering the controversy raised about the jurisdiction the same assume legal importance and it need to be taken up at the first instance. Section 177 of the Code refers to the common law rule that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of the crime is the area of jurisdiction in which on the evidence the facts occurred and are alleged to constitute the crime. Section 177 of the Code refers to the common law rule that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of the crime is the area of jurisdiction in which on the evidence the facts occurred and are alleged to constitute the crime. Section 179 of the Code provides that when the act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and any consequence has ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tride by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. From this provision it is thus, obvious that the consequence must be essential ingredient of the offence sor.1ething which forms part and parcel of in or completes the offence. In the light of these provisions, the controversy raised need to be considered. 6. As pointed out by the learned counsel for he petitioners the allegations of the IPC., Annexure-5 to the affidavit of the petitioners clearly indicate that acts of harassment or cruelty were committed against the complainant while she was staying with the petitioners in their house in the town of Bilaspur, district Rampur and demand for extra dowry was also made at that place. The F.I.R. further indicate that attempts to assault the complainant physically were also made at that place and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners have had occasion to treat that complainant with cruelty or raise demand for extra dowry while the complainant may be staying in Ramnagar district Nainital. Whatever acts of omission or commission were made by the petitioners that took place in the town of Bilaspur district Rampur and none of the alleged act of cruelty took place within the jurisdiction of the courts at district Nainital. It is also evident from the allegations of the F.I.R. that none of the consequences of any act which is an offence have ensued at Ramnagar because the ingredient of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, criminal intimidation and demand of extra dowry were completed when the complainant continued to reside with the petitioners in the town of Bilaspur district Rampur. In such a situation the police of P. S. Ramnagar district Nainital have had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime as alleged in the F.I.R. The only course available was to transfer the investigation to the police of district Rampur which had jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation in the matter. The charge-sheet submitted by the police P. S. Ramnagar district Nainital is, thus, without jurisdiction and the court at Nainital has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and try the case against the petitioners. Considering this, the charge-sheet in question has to be quashed. In view thereof, the charge-sheet filed was without jurisdiction and there appear to be no need• to enter into the merit and other pleas taken by the petitioner to assail the propriety of the chargesheet against them. 7. For the above reasons, the charge-sheet dated 28.5.2002 in case crime no. 179 of 2002, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 LP.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Ramnagar, District Naintial and the summoning orders dated 2.7.2002 and 26.7.2002 passed by C.J.M., Nainital in criminal case no. 1459 of 2002 are liable to be quashed and the petitioner need to be allowed. 8. The petitioner is allowed. Charge sheet dated 28.5.2002 in case crime no. 179 of 2002, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Ramnagar, District Nainital and the summoning orders dated 2.7.2002 and 26.7.2002 passed by C.J.M., Nainital in criminal case no. 1459 of 2002 are quashed. Investigation of the case shall be transferred by the police of P. S. Ramnagar to the police of P. S. Bilaspur, district Raplpur which has jurisdiction in the matter. Interim order dated 1.8.2002 is vacated.