Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 630 (ALL)

Mahtab Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2014-02-19

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of case crime no.101 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 3. It has been argued that the applicants are the resident of Dehradoon and the victim after her marriage resided at Dehradoon, hence, the Courts at Ghaziabad did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the case. 4. The offence of cruelty is a continuing offence and it continues from the time of commission of the act which amounted to cruelty and until its effect lasts over the victim and during this period if the victim has moved to other place, the courts at that place shall also have the jurisdiction. Same is the case in the present set of facts. Even though the marriage was solemnised at Dehradoon, but after the act of cruelty while she was under the trauma of cruelty over her, she came down to Ghaziabad, her parental place, hence, the Court at Ghaziabad equally had the jurisdiction to try the offence. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge before the trial Court through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submission in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 6. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet and proceedings is, hereby, refused. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge before the trial Court through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submission in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 6. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet and proceedings is, hereby, refused. 7. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009(4) SCC 437 , after hearing the public prosecutor. 8. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them and no protection of this order shall be available to them. 9. It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the subordinate court shall exercise its independent discretion in deciding the application for bail. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.