Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 501 (UTT)

Premlata @ Sakshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-08-24

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Application (CRMA 979 of 2012) made therefor is disposed of. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State. Also heard Smt. Premlata @ Sakshi, who is present in person before this Court. Perused the papers available on record. 3. The question involved in the present petition is purely legal. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Premlata @ Sakshi was wedded with Devendra Kumar Mehra on 11.2.2007. Within a week of marriage, she was subjected to such a cruelty as to force her to leave the matrimonial house and she had to come to reside with her parents at Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. In due course, talks began to settle the scores but in vain. So, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr PC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar with the prayer to register and investigate the crime committed by the accused respondents. 4. Learned Magistrate rejected the aforesaid application of Smt. Premlata @ Sakshi just on the ground that the matter was out of jurisdiction of that court because the entire incident occurred at Ramanagar (District Nainital). Applicant preferred a revision against the said order of the Magistrate, which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that since the entire occurrence and crime is a continuing offence, therefore, in such matters, the courts based at Udham Singh Nagar cannot be deprived to entertain the matter. Undoubtedly in matters pertaining to 156(3) Cr PC where the court refuses to make a favourable order then on the basis of the precedent rendered in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2011 Cri. L.J. 2278, she did have a remedy to file a complaint or to have recourse to other modalities as have been enumerated in that precedent of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. But that is not the question here. Both the courts below have rejected the application of applicant Premlata @ Sakshi just on the basis of lack of jurisdiction which is not correct in view of the proposition of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar & Another, 2011 (1) U.D. 412. Both the courts below have rejected the application of applicant Premlata @ Sakshi just on the basis of lack of jurisdiction which is not correct in view of the proposition of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar & Another, 2011 (1) U.D. 412. In that case the bride was being subjected to the atrocious conduct by her in-laws at the matrimonial house situated at Ranchi (Jharkhand), where all the in-laws were residing. The native place of the bride was Gaya (Bihar). She initiated the legal proceedings at Gaya. Matter went up to the Apex Court. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the courts at Gaya had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the offence was continuing one. 6. In view of the above position of law, there remains nothing to be considered. Petition has substance and it is hereby allowed. 7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.8.2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and the order dated 2.11.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh are hereby quashed. Matter is remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar with direction to pass the appropriate orders on the complaint of the applicant after considering the merits of the case.