Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 185 (MP)

Chiranjan Sharma v. State of M. P.

2009-02-06

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
ORDER 1. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.c. for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before JMFC, Jora, in Criminal Case No. 5/05 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are, respondent No.2-Adesh Sharma is the legally wedded wife of the applicant No.1-Chitranjan Sharma. Their marriage took place at Jora and it is alleged that after the marriage the applicant, who are the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant started harassing the complainant with regard to demand of dowry - motorcycle and other articles. On the basis of the written report lodged by respondent No.2-wife, the Police Jora had registered a case under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after due investigation filed the charge sheet before JMFC, Jora. After filing of this charge sheet the applicants came up before this Court alleging that the complainant and the applicant No.1 immediately before the alleged incident lived together at Indore and on perusal of the FIR also the' harassment to the complainant also took place at Indore. Therefore, registration of the First Information Report at Jora Police Station is illegal and erroneous and consequently the submission of the charge sheet at JMFC Jora is also illegal. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings initiated against the applicant before JMFC Jora for the aforesaid offence. Hence, filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parts and perused the charge sheet papers. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the alleged harassment coupled with demand of dowry took place at Indore, for which the complainant had lodged the false report at Police Station Jora which is without jurisdiction and Police Jora had also wrongly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence, which had been committed at Indore. Therefore, prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings of the charge sheet filed by Police Jora. 5. Therefore, prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings of the charge sheet filed by Police Jora. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant submit that the marriage of complainant and applicant No.1 had taken place at Jora and in the FIR there is clear assertion of the fact that the accused persons harassed the complainant with regard to the demand of dowry at Jora itself. A part of the offence is committed at Indore where the applicant No.1 had demanded dowry of Rs. 2.00 lacs from the parents of the complainant but as the offence has been at two different places then as per provisions of Section 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both the Courts are having jurisdiction to try the offences alleged to be committed at two different places and in view of that, the cognizance taken by the JMFC Jora is not found to be illegal or erroneous. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. The core question for determination before this Court is as to whether JMFC Jora has jurisdiction to take cognizance against the applicants for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not? 7. On perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2-complainant it is apparent that there is clear allegation of demand of dowry by the applicants/accused at Jora itself and the second part of the offence alleged in the FIR is with regard to demand of Rs.2.00 lacs by the applicant at Indore, while the complainant was living with the applicant No.1 at Indore. Therefore, on perusal of the assertions made in the FIR it is apparent that the offence has been committed by the accused persons at both the places at Jora as well as at Indore and if these are the facts then the provisions of Section 178 of Cr.P.C1. win come into force. For ready reference it will be useful to quote here the aforesaid provision which reads hear as under: - "178. win come into force. For ready reference it will be useful to quote here the aforesaid provision which reads hear as under: - "178. Places of inquiry of trial: -- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and part 1 in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any or such local areas." 8. On perusal of the aforesaid of Section 178 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that when an offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one then the offence can be enquired and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 9. In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 178 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 it is apparent that the offence of harassment and demand of dowry had taken place at Jora as well as at Indore also and both the Courts are having jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence and in such circumstances, if the JMFC Jora has taken cognizance for the aforesaid offence under Section 498 A of IPC then there is no jurisdictional error apparent on which basis the proceeding registered against the applicants by JMFC Jora can be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appasaheb & Another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 (1) CAR [SC] 53, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "merely demand of some money by the husband for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry." 11. In the present case there is specific allegation with regard to the demand of dowry -- a motorcycle by the applicants from the complainant. Therefore, the judgment in the aforesaid case cited by counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the present case. 12. In the present case there is specific allegation with regard to the demand of dowry -- a motorcycle by the applicants from the complainant. Therefore, the judgment in the aforesaid case cited by counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the present case. 12. Similarly, the learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Kapil Raj v. State of M.P., reported in 2002 (II) MPWN 151 , where in it is laid down that "if the offence was committed at the jurisdiction of Amritsar Court then certainly Gwalior Court has no jurisdiction to try the offences, therefore, the prosecution has been quashed." 13. The facts of the aforesaid case are also different from the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is clear averment in the FIR that the complainant has been harassed at her parental house at Jora, therefore, the jurisdiction of Jora Court cannot be ousted at all. 14. Considering the total facts of the case, taking of cognizance by the JMFC Jora for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not appear to be erroneous and illegal which can be quashed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. Resultantly, the petition filed by the applicants being devoid of any merits is dismissed accordingly.