Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2564 (RAJ)

Usha Upadhyay v. The State of Rajasthan

2005-09-23

J.R.GOYAL

body2005
Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charge-sheet No. 28/2005 submitted by Police Station Old City, Tonk and the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No. 331/2005 for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 406, 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. .2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2 Smt. Archna, whose marriage was solemnised with Amit Upadhyay on 111.2002 at Aligarh, filed a complaint in the Court of Juridical Magistrate, Tonk on 16.08.2004, which was sent under Section 156 (3) CrPC to the police. On receiving the complaint, police registered a case under Sections 323, 342, 147, 406, 498-A and 313, IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. .3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioners contended that according to the FIR, the marriage was solemnised at Aligarh and, thereafter the complainant Smt. Archna resided with her husband Amit Upadhyay at Shimla. No alleged act took place at Tonk. In this situation, charge-sheet filed by the police was without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 4286 , wherein it was held that when no part of cause of action arose at Chennai, the Court at Chennai, therefore, had no jurisdiction. .5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused petitioners harassed the complainant Smt. Archna demanding dowry and she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter at the house of her maternal grandmother at Tonk. It is also contended that from the FIR it transpires that the husband of complainant, Amit Upadhyay, and his father Vijendra Upadhyay, came to Tonk on 08.08.2004 and forcibly entered in to the house where the complainant was residing with her maternal grandmother, threatened and gave beating to her. Therefore, being a contining offense, the police at Tonk was competent to investigate in to the matter and file charge-sheet. .6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. Here, it is not a case where there is no allegation that not even a single alleged act has taken place at Tonk. Therefore, being a contining offense, the police at Tonk was competent to investigate in to the matter and file charge-sheet. .6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. Here, it is not a case where there is no allegation that not even a single alleged act has taken place at Tonk. According to the FIR lodged by the complainant Smt. Archna, her marriage was solemnised on 111.2002 with accused Amit Upadhyay at Aligarh, and it was alleged that after sometime of her marriage she was harassed for demand of dowry, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house to live with her maternal grandmother at Tonk, where also her husband and father-in-law came and forcibly entered in to the house, threatened her and gave beating to her. In an identical situation, Honble the Apex Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, 1997 (5) SCC 30 , observed that in continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation Clause (C) of Section 178 CrPC is clearly attracted, which contemplates that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas, then such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. In the light of the above legal position in this case it cannot be said that Police Station Old City, Tonk was not competent to investigate in to the matter and file the charge-sheet. Consequently, the misc, petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.