Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 491 (UTT)

KISHAN KUMAR @ KRISHNA v. SANTOSH @ ARTI

2010-07-20

DHARAM VEER

body2010
JUDGMENT HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this application moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have prayed for quashing the chargesheet dated 11.10.2008 and the summoning order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2065/2008, State v. Kishan Kumar @ Krishna & Ors. under Section 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the entire proceedings of the said case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Smt. Santosh @ Aarti lodged an FIR in PS Kashipur with the averments that she got married to petitioner no.1 Kishan Kumar @ Krishan on 2.12.2007 at Kashipur as per Hindu rites. Petitioners no. 2 & 3 are the relatives of petitioner no. 1. In the marriage her father had given dowry according to his status but the petitioners were not happy and they demanded more dowry and started torturing the complainant for the dowry and asked her to bring rupees two lakhs from her maternal house. Lastly the complainant was ousted from the house at Moradabad on 3.3.2008 after being beaten while she was pregnant. Her stridhan was also forcibly kept by the petitioners. Thereafter she reached at the house of her maternal grandfather who was also living at Moradabad. Petitioner never enquired thereafter about the well-being of the respondent no. 1. With these averments, an FIR was lodged on 5.6.2008. The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation filed the chargesheet against the petitioners before the Court of ACJM, Kashipur. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR itself reveals that no part of the alleged offence has been committed within the territory of Uttarakhand. It is further pointed out that the entire alleged incident happended in Moradabad in the State of U.P. and no part of cause of action arose in Kashipur or anywhere in the State of Uttaakhand. It is further pointed out that the entire alleged incident happended in Moradabad in the State of U.P. and no part of cause of action arose in Kashipur or anywhere in the State of Uttaakhand. Specific pleading to this effect has been taken on behalf of the petitioners in para 16 of the affidavit filed along with the petition wherein it has been stated that as per the allegations of the complainant the alleged incident is said to have been committed at Moradabad and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicants before ACJM, Kashipur and without jurisdiction. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 as well as the State, wherein averments made in para 16 of the affidavit by the petitioners have not been denied. 6. Attention of this Court is drawn to Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, which are reproduced as under: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offences was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly 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 of such local areas.” 7. I am in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no part of cause of action arose in the State of Uttarakhand. Whatever allegations have been made in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, they are related to Moradabad in the State of U.P. where the petitioners reside. No demand or harassment either mental or physical has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand. Hence, as per the provisions contained under Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not maintainable in the State of Uttarakhand, as no cause of action whatsoever has been alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. Hence, as per the provisions contained under Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not maintainable in the State of Uttarakhand, as no cause of action whatsoever has been alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134, wherein at 19 it has been observed as under: “When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” 9. My view is further fortified by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in III (2008) SLT 712, wherein it has been held that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the Court where no part of offence was committed. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The impugned chargesheet dated 11.10.2008 and the summoning order dated 14.11.2008 passed in Criminal Case No. 2065/2008 State v. Kishan Kumar @ Krishan & Ors. under Section 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the ACJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed with the observation that complainant (respondent no.1) may make a complaint regarding her grievance before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. Interim order dated 21.1.2009 stands vacated.