Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 604 (JK)

Prikshit Pathania v. Anuradha Dadwal

2010-12-08

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2010
1. Strained relationship between petitioner no.1 and the respondent, allegedly has given rise to various disputes entangling the parties into various litigative processes. 2. By the medium of this petition, quashment of proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (City Judge), Jammu are sought, primarily on the ground that the Court of Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as filed by the respondent (complainant). 3. The complaint as filed by the respondent for offence punishable under Section 498-A R.P.C is to the effect that the petitioner no.1 and the respondent have solemnized marriage as per the Hindu customs and rituals on 1st of October' 2006 at Jammu. But according to the complainant process of subjecting her to cruelty started when she reached to Sulali (State of Himachal Pradesh) i.e., the residential place of the petitioner where, on unpacking the luggage and gifts of the bride (complainant) murmur of ladies from in-laws side started, as the gifts and the luggage was not as good as was expected by the family of the petitioner (bridegroom). It is also alleged that she was taken to Hoshiarpur (State of Punjab) where she lived in the house of respondent no.6 (one of the accused) who did not like the presence of respondent (complainant), so started humiliating her. Furthermore, the conduct of the petitioner no.1 (accused) was cruel and harsh towards the respondent (complainant). 4. Respondent (complainant) while noticing all facts of ill treatment amounting to cruelty in the complaint lodged the same before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who in turn assigned the same to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (City Judge), Jammu. 5. Learned Magistrate after recording the statements has taken the cognizance on 30th of May' 2009 as against the petitioners for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A R.P.C. Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition. 6. It is trite that exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C is permissible only in exceptional situations, so as to prevent the abuse of process of Court, or to give effect to any order under the Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C is indispensible. 7. When Court lacks jurisdiction, but still has taken cognizance so as to allow trial, which finally will have no meaning, shall be simply an exercise in futility. In the instant case, exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C is indispensible. 7. When Court lacks jurisdiction, but still has taken cognizance so as to allow trial, which finally will have no meaning, shall be simply an exercise in futility. Taking of cognizance without addressing the question of jurisdiction is absolutely abuse of process of Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent when confronted with the averments of the complaint and the statement of witnesses as recorded in support of the complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance and for issuance of process, was fair enough to state that no part of the offence is shown to have been committed within the territory of district Jammu and further stated that on question of jurisdiction proceedings before the trial Court have to collapse. 9. On thoughtful consideration of the contents of the complaint, it is clearly alleged therein that the respondent (complainant) was first subjected to ill treatment when she reached to Sulali (State of Himachal Pradesh) to the residence of petitioner no.1 when her luggage & gifts etc., were unpacked and found by the family of petitioner no.1 not up to the mark. Thereafter, they started living at Hoshiarpur (State of Punjab). No where in the complaint it is mentioned or alleged that after the solemnization of marriage the petitioner no.1 and respondent ever lived together within the territory of district Jammu nor it is anywhere alleged that any type of cruelty was committed upon the respondent within the territory of district Jammu. 10. Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in enquiries and trials. Section 177 of the Code provides that every offence ordinarily has to be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. Whereas other provisions of the Chapter also covers the cases vis-`-vis question of jurisdiction but in view of the averments of the complaint and the statements recorded in support thereof, no part of offence is shown to have been committed within the local limits of district Jammu nor any ensuing consequence thereafter has occurred in district Jammu. Therefore, in the background of the provisions contained in Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as filed by the respondent (complainant). Therefore, in the background of the provisions contained in Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as filed by the respondent (complainant). When a Court has no jurisdiction, to permit the continuance of the trial would be against the interest of justice and will be simply to permit the abuse of process of Court. The trial Court while taking cognizance has over looked the question of jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, petition succeeds. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the trial Court are quashed. 12. Copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information.