Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 438 (JHR)

Gazi Md. Masud Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-23

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2012
JUDGMENT D.N. Upadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal writ has been preferred to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004 [G.R. No. 15/2004], pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar and orders by which coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners to apprehend them in connection with the said case. 3. The backdrop behind filing of this case is that a dispute between Nasreen Rehana (Respondent No.2) and her husband-Gazi Md. Masud (Petitioner No.1) arose resulting in filing of cases from both sides: The husband-Petitioner No. 1 filed a Divorce Suit vide Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 199/2003 in the Court of Munsif, Giridih which was later on transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. After filing of the said case, the Respondent No.2 also lodged information with Madhupur, P.S. on the basis of which the instant case was registered and the investigation commenced. The Respondent No.2 has levelled allegation that she was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty for want of more dowry demanded in terms of cash of Rs. 50,000/-, golden ornaments and other valuables. 4. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioners had preferred W.P.(Cr.) No. 33/2004 before this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. and the criminal prosecution of the petitioners arising out of present case i.e. Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004 but they could not succeed and the said Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2005. It will also not be out of place to mention that the petitioners then appeared before the Court below and the proceeding was going on. In between, the Divorce Suit was decreed after some settlement between the parties and the petitioners under the impression that the criminal prosecution initiated vide Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004 had also come to an end, they stopped appearing in the case. In the result, processes like non-bailable warrant of arrest and Sections 82-83 Cr.P.C. were issued against the petitioners. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire incident as disclosed in the written report lodged by the Respondent No.2 had taken place within the District of Giridih and, therefore, S.D.J.M., Madhupur has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the said case and due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, criminal prosecution of the petitioners is unwarranted and liable to be quashed. 6. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another [ (2004)8 SCC 100 ] and the case of Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another [ (1999)8 SCC 728 ] [: 2000(1) PLJR (SC)1]. 7. The learned counsel has conceded with regard to prayer made under reference (b) of the application because suitable relief has already been ordered in favour of the petitioners by this Court in this Writ Application vide order dated 23rd December, 2011. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that no compromise between the parties in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004 has ever taken place. The petitioners are in the habit of filing petitions at different forums under various provisions of law only to delay the matter and to frustrate the criminal trial initiated against them. 9. It is admitted case of the petitioners that quashing of F.I.R. and criminal prosecution has already been refused by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2005, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 33/2004. The petitioners did not get favourable orders in Criminal Revision too, preferred by them and now they have again come with this Criminal Writ Petition only to harass the victim-wife (Respondent No.2). It is also pointed out that in the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioners had taken the plea of territorial jurisdiction but it was not favourably considered. The present writ is devoid of any merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. 10. The judgment of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others (supra) on which the petitioners have relied upon, I feel it desirable to refer the last three line of the judgment in which the Apex Court has ordered to return the complaint to the respondent for filing the same before the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. In the instant case, it is to be pointed out that the case was initiated in the year 2004 and it was a police case after which the trial proceeded. After lapse of such a long delay, it would not be desirable to direct the informant who is victim lady (Respondent No.2) to raise her grievances before the jurisdiction of another Court from the very beginning. 11. After lapse of such a long delay, it would not be desirable to direct the informant who is victim lady (Respondent No.2) to raise her grievances before the jurisdiction of another Court from the very beginning. 11. I have gone through the materials placed before me. Since the prayer made under reference (b) of the Writ Petition has already been allowed in favour of the petitioners, immediate relief has already been obtained by them. Now the question arises whether the criminal trial initiated vide Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004, pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar shall be permitted to be continued? In this context, I feel inclined to invoke powers conferred under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. and without discussing the place of occurrence, territorial jurisdiction and the offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence or not, hereby direct that considering the convenience of victim lady-Respondent No.2, the trial against the petitioners shall continue in the Court of S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar or in the successor Court. 12. In view of the above, the trial and criminal prosecution of the petitioners arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 8/2004 [G.R. No. 15/2004] pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar or successor Court, shall continue. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ Petition stands disposed of.