Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 566 (UTT)

AJAY AGARWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2011-09-09

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT By way of this petition, petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the chargesheet no. 101 dated 19.12.2006 pertaining to the crime no. 134/2006 and the order of cognizance dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dehradun thereupon. 2. After hearing the pros and cons of the matter in controversy, it transpires that opposite party no. 2-Shilpa Agarwal tied her knot with the applicant Dr. Ajay Agarwal on dated 27.6.2004. Out of this wedlock, a daughter was born on 5.9.2005 at Bhopal, the working place of the petitioner. Soon after the marriage, Shilpa Agarwal was confronted the maltreatment at the hands of her husband and other family members of in-laws house including her mother in law. On many occasions, the details whereon have been mentioned in the FIR, she was beaten, abused, taunted and tortured on the question of dowry demanding Rs. 5.00 lacs with the comment that mistakenly the petitioner was wedded in the family of beggars. So, he could not receive the sufficient dowry and matrimonial assets at the occasion of marriage. Opposite party no. 2 narrated a long tale of the tyrannies and the atrocious conduct of her husband Dr. Ajay Aggarwal forcing her to leave the house and take shelter in Bhopal at the residence of her near relative (uncle). Petitioner, in order to meet the trouble half-way, moved an application to the police station at Bhopal on dated 13.3.2006 at 10 PM stating that his wife Shilpa Agarwal has left his house at 8:30 AM and she is being searched and probably she has been at Chinar Woodland, ‘B’ Block No. 422 (Needless to mention that this house is the address of Sri Atul Gupta to whom Shilpa Agarwal has accepted as her near relative uncle). In turn, Shilpa Agarwal also informed the police on dated 14.3.2006 that on account of altercations and the family quarrel with her husband, she has taken shelter in the house of her uncle Sri Atul Gupta and likely to reside there up till the arrival of her father there. 3. On the same day, i.e. on 14.3.2006, her father arrived and under information to the police station concerned, she left along with her baby daughter to her parental home at Dehradun only with the clothes worn upon her body. 4. 3. On the same day, i.e. on 14.3.2006, her father arrived and under information to the police station concerned, she left along with her baby daughter to her parental home at Dehradun only with the clothes worn upon her body. 4. The days and months passed on and the FIR discloses that during period of 7-8 months, petitioner used to extend the threats in so many words on the question of dowry and continued to maltreat, not only her wife but also to her father and other family members. The FIR was lodged on 16.11.2006 and after investigation, the chargesheet for the offence of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun, who took cognizance of the matter on dated 19.2.2007. The said order of cognizance and chargesheet was challenged under this petition and as an interim measure, proceedings before the court below were stayed by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, it is worth mentioning that the attention of this Court has been drawn towards the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate u/s 177 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel of the petitioner has relied upon the following two precedents :- 1. Smt. Zeenat & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, reported in 2008 (2) U.D. 239. 2. Bhura Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 109. 6. In the first precedent of Smt. Zeenat’s case, the learned Single Judge of this High Court quashed the chargesheet in a similar matter where it was filed at Haridwar court while the bride’s matrimonial house was at Ghaziabad and all the alleged demand of dowry was made by her husband and other family members of in-laws at Ghaziabad and there were only few threatening telephonic calls at Haridwar during the period when wife was residing at her parents’ house. 7. 7. In the second precedent of Bhura Ram’s case, adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the scope of Section 177 Cr.P.C. was again viewed and the complaint filed at Sri Ganganagar (State of Rajasthan) against the accused persons and the charges framed for the dowry and breach of trust by the Ganganagar court, were quashed on the ground that on the basis of factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of private opposite party Shilpa Agarwal has placed reliance upon an of late precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 412”. In that matter, in-laws house was at Ranchi (State of Jharkhand) while the parents’ house of the woman was at Gaya (Bihar), then in similar matter, the territorial jurisdiction was again in question and the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the accused persons subjected her to cruelty and harassment at her in-laws’ house at Ranchi for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and thereafter, she was forcibly taken out of her in-laws’ house by them and was left at her parental house at Gaya and there also their torture and threats that she would not be taken back unless her father would fulfill their demand of dowry was continued. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons and the court of C.J.M. Gaya took cognizance of the offences. Accused persons raised objections of jurisdiction. Husband challenged the said criminal proceedings in Hon’ble Patna High Court, which quashed the said proceedings, holding that the criminal proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. After the quashing of the proceedings by the Patna High Court, complainant filed an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition to the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then it was held that the offence in the case at hand was a continuing one, in which on some occasion all the accused had taken part and in other occasions, one accused, namely the husband, had taken part and in view of Sections 178 and 179, the criminal court at Gaya had jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Then it was held that the offence in the case at hand was a continuing one, in which on some occasion all the accused had taken part and in other occasions, one accused, namely the husband, had taken part and in view of Sections 178 and 179, the criminal court at Gaya had jurisdiction to proceed with the case. This way, the order of Hon’ble High Court, quashing the entire proceedings, was set aside. 9. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashand Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cr.) 676”. Similar view has been followed by the Allahabad High Court in the precedents mentioned below :- 1. Vijay Ratan Sharma Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1988 Cr.L.J. Page 1581 – It was held that when the wife sent back to her father’s house after maltreating her for dowry-wife falling ill after her return to father’s house due to mental shock caused by cruelty of husband and relatives, in such cases the Court within whose jurisdiction wife resided with her father had jurisdiction to try the offence as the offence was partly committed outside Court’s jurisdiction when she was maltreated and continued to be committed within Court’s jurisdiction where she had been left with her father. 2. Similar view was also reiterated by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Prabhat Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1999, Allahabad Criminal Case Page 1. 3. In another case of “Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.” reported in 1994 (31) Allahabad Criminal Case Page 809, the similar stand also taken by the Allahabad High Court, albeit the matter in controversy was of Section 494 IPC, wherein it was held that where the wife was residing with her father at another place, then the criminal proceedings launched at the place of residence of wife were not quashed on the question of jurisdiction. 10. In the instant case, as the allegations of FIR advert, the attitude of maltreatment and the demand of dowry on telephone calls, and otherwise, is continuing on the part of accused Dr. Ajay Agarwal towards his wife Shilpa Agarwal as well as her father. So, in view of Section 178(c) Cr.P.C., the Court at Dehradun is well within its jurisdiction to try the case. 11. Ajay Agarwal towards his wife Shilpa Agarwal as well as her father. So, in view of Section 178(c) Cr.P.C., the Court at Dehradun is well within its jurisdiction to try the case. 11. Learned counsel of the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Shilpa Aggarwal, her father K.K. Aggarwal and her mother Smt. Rani Aggarwal and the applicant did not get any occasion to come across with the I.O. to put their grievance or version against the complaint. This argument is not tenable at this stage because the accused persons would get ample opportunity during the course of trial to put forward their defence in the court and the proceedings of Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not to weigh the entire evidence on merits and scrutinize the whole controversy meticulously. 12. In view of the above, this Court opines that the petition is meritless, which is liable to be dismissed. Petition C482 is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order dated 25.10.2007 is vacated. Let the information be sent to the court below.