Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 236 (UTT)

RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant before this Court is the husband of private respondent No. 2 – Smt. Anjali. The private respondent had lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Ramnagar, under Sections 323/504/506/498A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicant as well as against his three sisters, namely, Rajkumari, Smt. Meena and Smt. Ishwari. Thereafter the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Consequently, a chargesheet was filed against the applicant and his three sisters. Thereafter the applicant moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharging where the main contention of the applicant was that no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Ramnagar or Uttarakhand. As per the averments made in the First Information Report, the entire allegations pertain to Delhi. However, respondent No. 2 moved a complaint against the applicant at Ramnagar, which is her parental house. The application (under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.) of the applicant has been rejected by the court concerned. Against the said rejection, the applicant preferred revision, which was also dismissed. Hence the present application before this Court. 2. From the perusal of the orders passed by the courts below it appears that the reasoning adopted by both the courts is that since the chargesheet has been filed, the matter has to be proceeded. The learned Senior Advocate – Ms. Pushpa Joshi for the complainant/respondent No. 2 has tried to argue that Section 498A of I.P.C. is a continuance offence although she was largely “tortured” at Delhi, but this has continued at her parental place at Ramnagar, District Nainital as well. However, from the perusal of the First Information Report it is apparently clear that no cause of action, whatsoever, has taken place at Ramnagar or Uttarakhand. 3. In terms of the specific provision contained in Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., the court asked both the counsels as to what part of action or continuing offence occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, but no satisfactory reply to this query of the court has been given by the either side. 4. 3. In terms of the specific provision contained in Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., the court asked both the counsels as to what part of action or continuing offence occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, but no satisfactory reply to this query of the court has been given by the either side. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand has cited two cases of Hon’ble Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 wherein this Court has held that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhura Ram & others Vs State of Rajasthan & another reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 109 in the said case the complainant left her matrimonial place (Punjab) and started residing at Gangnagar (Rajasthan) alongwith her maternal relations and all the alleged acts, as per the complainant had taken place in the State of Punjab. Considering this fact, the Hon’ble Apex Corut held that the court at Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to deal with the aspect. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent, on the other hand, relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs State of Bihar & another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301 where the charges were similar under Section 498A of I.P.C. where the Court had considered that part of action took place at Ranchi but some part of action at Gaya, and therefore, considering the letter and spirit of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court decided that part cause of action arises at Gaya, as certain action had taken place in the territorial jurisdiction at Gaya while it has been alleged that the husband came all the way from Ranchi to Gaya and demanded dowry. However, the present case is different from the case relied upon by the respondent as nothing like this has been sought by the husband in the present case. No cause of action whatsoever has been taken place in the territory of Uttarakhand. 6. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. However, the present case is different from the case relied upon by the respondent as nothing like this has been sought by the husband in the present case. No cause of action whatsoever has been taken place in the territory of Uttarakhand. 6. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1826 of 2013, State Vs Rajesh & others for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498A of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital and all consequential orders are hereby quashed.