Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 435 (MP)

Atul Kumar Pachauri v. State of M. P.

2013-04-02

Anil Sharma

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC challenging the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Datia in Criminal Revision No.111/2009 whereby the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Criminal Case No.1176/2008 has been confirmed. The present petition is also for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1176/2008 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The criminal case has been registered against the petitioners on the report of respondent No.2 for her harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and his relatives who are petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made the allegation of dowry demand at her in-laws house at Delhi and in the FIR there is allegation regarding harassment for dowry at Datia, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. It has further been submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners -Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma who have been mentioned as Mamiya Sasur and Mameri Nanad. It has further been submitted that in absence of any specific allegation, the cognizance taken against the petitioners -Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma is not sustainable and further against the remaining petitioners the only allegation is that when they used to come at Delhi they also harassed the complainant for demand of dowry. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn attention towards the order dated 22.12.2009 Annexure -A passed in M CrC No. 8158/2008 in which direction has been issued to learned trial Court to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction in the light of judgment passed by the apex Court in the matter of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, 2007 (1) JLJ 198 = (2007) 1 SCC 262 by passing a reasoned order. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order has held that the allegation of cruelty has been made at both the places i.e. Datia and Delhi, therefore, the Court at Datia and Delhi both have the territorial jurisdiction for trial of the case. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order has held that the allegation of cruelty has been made at both the places i.e. Datia and Delhi, therefore, the Court at Datia and Delhi both have the territorial jurisdiction for trial of the case. It has also been mentioned that threat has been given to the complainant on telephone at Datia which falls within the category of mental cruelty, therefore, so far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned looking to the continuation of offence at Datia where the threat has been given on telephone to the complainant, the Court at Datia is having the territorial jurisdiction of hearing the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards the letter which is alleged to have been written by the complainant on 20.6.2004 to her mother and father in which there is no allegation against the petitioners -Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma but the letter has to be proved in evidence in defence by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of apex Court in the matter of Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, AIR 2004 SC 4286 in which it has been held that the acts complained of alleged to have taken at place ‘N’ complaint filed before the Court at place ‘M’, the complainant had left her husband’s place at ‘N’ and went to the place ‘M’ but the complainant does not disclose any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence at place ‘M’. The logic of section 178(c)of CrPC relating to continuing offence, therefore, does not apply. No part of cause of action arose at ‘M’, therefore, the Court at ‘M’ has no jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 of IPC. The proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed under the provisions of section 482 of CrPC. On the same point, learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in the matter of Gurmeet Singh v. State of M.P. 2006(III) MPWN 21 = 2006 (I) MPLJ 250 . 7. The proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed under the provisions of section 482 of CrPC. On the same point, learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in the matter of Gurmeet Singh v. State of M.P. 2006(III) MPWN 21 = 2006 (I) MPLJ 250 . 7. Further and last reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the decision of apex Court in the matter of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, 2007 (1) JLJ 198 = (2007) 1 SCC 262 in which while considering the provisions of sections 178(c) and 177 and 406 of CrPC regarding place of enquiry and trial where appellant No.1 married with respondent No. 2 and living at matrimonial home at Jabalpur. Appellant No. 1’s father-in-law lodged a complaint with the police at Jabalpur alleging ill-treatment to respondent No. 2 and demand of dowry from her by appellant No. 1 and his family members (appellants). Respondent No. 2 also lodged an FIR alleging that her husband and in-laws ill treated her so much that she had to leave the matrimonial home and to live with her parents at Datia. The apex Court has held that the High Court has erred in taking view that respondent No. 2 having been forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of torture by her in-laws, it amounted to mental cruelty and harassment which continued even at the place of her father at Datia and therefore, the offence may be inquired into and tried also at Datia Court. 8. In the present case, there is allegation of mental cruelty on telephone at Datia, therefore, the offence of alleged harassment or cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry is continuing at Datia, therefore, the Court at Datia do also have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case as the offence is continuing one, therefore, no interference in the impugned order is warranted under section 482 of CrPC. So far as the allegation against the petitioners-Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma are concerned, there are specific allegations of demand of Rs. 8 lakh against the petitioners also and letter written by the complainant can only be considered after their proving in evidence by defence. 9. So far as the allegation against the petitioners-Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma are concerned, there are specific allegations of demand of Rs. 8 lakh against the petitioners also and letter written by the complainant can only be considered after their proving in evidence by defence. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no interference under section 482 of CrPC is required in the present case, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners has no merit and is hereby dismissed being bereft of merits.