Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2149 (RAJ)

Mohammed Jakir v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against them in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 411/2005 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. on the ground that the Court at Nagaur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Assailing the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, admittedly, the marriage between the complainant respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 took place at Udaipur and all the so called acts of cruelty etc. with the complainant have admittedly taken place at Udaipur and, therefore, the Court at Nagaur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. because no cause of action has arisen for the trial of the case to be done at Nagaur. 2. Arguing for quashing of the proceedings, Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case, the complainant in her F.I.R. has come up with a specific case that the marriage between the complainant respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 took place at Udaipur and she has alleged that she was harassed and humiliated on account of bringing less dowry by the accused persons at Udaipur only and, as such, the Court at Nagaur cannot hold trial of the case as it lacs territorial jurisdiction for proceeding with the matter. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking dropping of the proceedings against them, which has been rejected by the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned trial Court. 3. Reference has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 and Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2666 . 4. Notices of the misc. petition were issued to the respondents and power has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, but, nobody appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent No. 2, when the same was taken up. 5. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2666 . 4. Notices of the misc. petition were issued to the respondents and power has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, but, nobody appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent No. 2, when the same was taken up. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and also perused the papers filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 6. From the perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that the admitted case of the complainant in the typed F.I.R., which she has submitted is that the so called acts of cruelty have been committed with the complainant at Udaipur. The highest allegation of the complainant in the F.I.R. regarding any act of the accused at Nagaur is simply to the effect that after the petitioner No. 4 namly Aiyasha had given birth to a child, the petitioner No. 1 came to Nagaur and he was given a sum of rupees twenty thousand by the mother of the complainant towards delivery charges, but there is no allegation that the said demand was made by the petitioner No. 1 at Nagaur. On the contrary, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has alleged that after the petitioner No. 4 delivered a child, she gave a sum of rupees twenty thousand to her-in-laws voluntarily. However, in the F.I.R., there is an allegation by the complainant that when she was living in Nagaur, her husband Mohammed Jakir, mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to call her on telephone and threatened her in relation to various demands. It is further alleged that after the complainant had given birth to the child in hospital in the year 2005, her-in-laws came to the hospital and there also they even refused to look at the child because of their demands. Another allegation has been made that on 25.3.2005, the husband of the complainant came to Nagaur and made a demand of rupees fifteen thousand. Another allegation has been made that on 25.3.2005, the husband of the complainant came to Nagaur and made a demand of rupees fifteen thousand. The police however after investigating the matter gave FR, on which, the complainant submitted a protest petition and examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in this statement, a specific allegation has been made regarding the demand of rupees twenty thousand being made by the petitioner No. I at Nagaur and regarding the mother of the complainant having given this amount to the petitioner No. 1. As such, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. or the material collected in support of the same and the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any cause of action for proceeding against the accused at Nagaur. 7. The application filed by accused under Section 117 Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the cases of Bhura Rain and Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), from the admitted facts of the case, the Court was of the opinion that none of the acts of cruelty had taken place in the jurisdiction of the Courts where the prosecution had been initiated. This is not the situation in the present case as has been discussed above. There are allegations in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclosing the acts of cruelty and demand by the accused at Nagaur. Thus, the prosecution of the accused in this case cannot be terminated as having been filed at the wrong jurisdiction. A part of the cause of action has taken place at Nagaur and thus the prosecution of the accused in the Court at Nagaur is very much justified by virtue of the provisions of Section 178 (b) of the Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this misc. petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the misc. petition as well as stay petition stand dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******