Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 968 (MP)

Neeraj Rathore v. Pramodini Rathore

2008-08-04

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard finally at motion stage on the petition under sections 482 and 177 of CrPC filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha (M.P.) in Case No. 5/2007 under section 4 read with section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under section 4 read with section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that her parents are residing at Vidisha and before that she was residing at Ujjain, where her in-laws are residing. The respondent filed a case against the petitioner. The copy of complaint is Annexure P-l. The allegation regarding demand of dowry was falsely made against the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner is residing at Ujjain, therefore, Vidisha Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Baljit Singh and another v. State of J. & K and others reported in AIR 1982 SC 1558 . He also placed reliance in the case of Sita Devi (Smt.) and others v. State of M.P. reported in 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 300 in which it is held that under sections 407 of CrPC, assurance of fair trial is first imperative of dispensation of justice -- motion for transfer -considerations. It is also held that trial should be allowed to take place in the Court who has territorial jurisdiction. Further, counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the other Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Archana v. State in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1787/2006 vide order dated 5.7.2006, in which it is observed that case was registered before the Court of JMFC Morena while incident took place at Gwalior within the jurisdiction of P.S. Janakganj. Proceedings of the criminal case pending before the trial Court were quashed. 'Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. reported in 2005 (I) MPWN 95 in which the Hon'ble apex Court held that place to try the offence, emphasis is on the place where offence has been committed. Proceedings of the criminal case pending before the trial Court were quashed. 'Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. reported in 2005 (I) MPWN 95 in which the Hon'ble apex Court held that place to try the offence, emphasis is on the place where offence has been committed. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, reported in [ 2007 (1) JLJ 198 = 2007 (1) ANJ (SC) 1]. 4. On the other hand, contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the citations as referred by the counsel for the petitioner is not related on the face of this case. They are related to other offence under section 4 read with section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per section 7 sub-clause 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is mentioned that nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act. Counsel for the respondent submits that when the respondent used to come to her parental house, she used to disclose the fact about demand of dowry. As per the allegation in the complaint, it is mentioned that at the time of marriage including cash and ornaments worth of Rs. 4,50,000/- were given to the petitioner and she wants to take back the above property which comes within the ambit of Streedhan. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on L. V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1219 in which the Hon'ble apex Court held that offence under section 4 is complete when demand of dowry is made. Consent for meeting the demand is not necessary. Offence is complete when demand made if consented would become "dowry" within section S. 2. It is also held by the apex Court that inherent powers of Court should be used sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe that process of law is being misused to harass a citizen. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is pertinent to mention paras 5 and 7 of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Daulat Mansingh Aher v. C.R. Ransi and another, reported in 1980 CriLJ 1171 as follows under: "5. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is pertinent to mention paras 5 and 7 of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Daulat Mansingh Aher v. C.R. Ransi and another, reported in 1980 CriLJ 1171 as follows under: "5. So far as the first contention based on the challenge to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, in our opinion, there is no substance in the said contention. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. K.P. Ghiara [ AIR 1957 SC 196 = 1957 CriLJ 322], the venue of enquiry or trial of a case is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge-sheet and unless the facts therein are positively disproved, ordinarily the Court, where the charge-sheet or complaint is filed, has to proceed with it, except where action has to be taken under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code (old Code). From the averments made in the complaint, it is quite clear that it is the case of the complaint that he received a letter from P.M. Aher is son-in-law and brother of the accused from Agartala. The said letter is dated 14th April 1977 and was written to Shri P.K. Aher by the accused himself, in his own handwriting from Bombay demanding the dowry of Rs. 30,000/- from him and also transfer of the fields in the name of his son-in-law or father in marriage; with Alka, complainant's daughter. 7. It is well settled that while dealing with such question under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, normally it will have to be presumed at this stage, that the averments made in the complaint are true. If this is so then obviously in the present case on the allegations made in the complaint it could be said that the demand was made from Wadala, Bombay-31 from where the letter was written and posted and also at Andheri where the letter was received by the complainant. If this is so then obviously in the present case on the allegations made in the complaint it could be said that the demand was made from Wadala, Bombay-31 from where the letter was written and posted and also at Andheri where the letter was received by the complainant. In this view of the matter in our opinion, the learned Magistrate was right in coming to the conclusion that his Court had jurisdiction in view of the provisions of sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Similarly, in the case of Maqsood Main and another v. Rukhsana Tazeem and another [1999 CriLJ 681], the High Court of Allahabad held that under the Dowry Prohibition Act (28 of 1961), section 6 criminal breach of trust -- non-return of money and gifts given to bride by her parents at time of marriage -- complaint against -- limitation for taking cognizance -- offence was of continuous nature. Limitation for taking cognizance would be as provided under section 473 of the CrPC. 5. In this petition, question of territorial jurisdiction and limitation was also raised. The venue of enquiry or trial of the case is determined by the averments made in the complaint. 6. Looking to the submissions made by the parties and the fact that under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, there was demand of articles by the petitioner at Vidisha. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction is a question of law and fact which cannot be interfered by this Court and it needs enquiry. The petitioner may raise the ground about jurisdiction before the lower Court at appropriate stage and the Court shall decide the same. Accordingly, MCrC stands dismissed.