Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1136 (MP)

Anugya Rastogi v. State of M. P.

2016-12-09

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : This petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for transferring back or call back the FIR bearing crime No. 0/15 registered under sections 498-A, 506-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was transferred to the police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP) from Mahila Police Station, Gwalior, inasmuch as FIR which was registered at Mahila police Station, Gwalior, was transferred for investigation to the police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP). 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the marriage was solemnized on 25-1-2014 and the parents of the present petitioner had given dowry as per their tradition and custom, so also their capacity. Out of the marriage, a son was born to the petitioner on 12-12-2014 at Gwalior and petitioner has been living at Gwalior since September, 2014 because of the torture committed upon her by the husband and in-laws. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 15-2-2014 her husband visited Gwalior and demanded TV and motorcycle, on which petitioner's mother showed her inability to give him motorcycle, but gave sum of Rs. 10,000/- at Gwalior. According to the petitioner, despite several efforts the husband and in-laws of the petitioner refused to accept the petitioner, and therefore, petitioner made a complaint at Mahila police Station, Gwalior, whereon on 20th September, 2015 police registered the FIR at Crime No. 0/15. It is her allegation that due to influence of her husband and in-laws, Mahila Police Station, Gwalior, deliberately and wrongly transferred the case to the Police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP), and therefore, this petition has been filed seeking relief that part of the FIR vide which investigation was transferred to police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP) be quashed and also to order for transferring the case from police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP) to Mahila Police Station, Gwalior. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee as reported in AIR 1997 SC 2465 wherein a prayer was made by the husband and his relatives for transfer of case from Raipur to Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee as reported in AIR 1997 SC 2465 wherein a prayer was made by the husband and his relatives for transfer of case from Raipur to Raigarh. The Supreme Court had set aside the order of the High Court and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, to proceed with the criminal case on the ground that in terms of the provisions contained in section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence which had taken place, part in Raipur and part in Raigarh. It is important to point out that the said judgment deals with the transfer of a case from territorial jurisdiction of one Sessions Court to territorial jurisdiction of another Sessions Court within the same State, whereas in the present case, the relief, which has been sought, is for transfer of investigation from Lucknow to Gwalior inasmuch as Mahila Police Station Gwalior had transmitted the FIR to police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP) for further investigation. As far as the aspect of investigation is concerned, section 178 deals with the place of enquiry or trial and it provides that in any of the four situations mentioned in section 178 the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. But in the case of Mahindra Kumar Narendra vs. State as reported in 2005 (1) Crimes (Del) it has been held that IO may forward the case to another place where also the offence was partly committed for a variety of reasons e.g. where the main offence was committed, where the witnesses are available for more effective investigation of the case. 4. 4. Notwithstanding this and without entering into the merits, it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 406 of Criminal Procedure Code which deals with transfer of criminal cases and in fact such power to transfer case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court lies with the Supreme Court and not with the High Court inasmuch as High Court can exercise this authority under section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code which permits such transfer within the jurisdiction of the High Court. In fact, there are limitations on the Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police Station to another in the Country simply because the first information report or remand report is forwarded to a Court as has been held in the case of Ram Chander Singh (Dr.) vs. State of T. N. as reported in AIR 1978 SC 475 . Therefore, merely because investigation has been forwarded to the Police Station, Thakurganj, Asharfabad, Lucknow (UP) it does not call for any interference in the hands of this Court inasmuch as there is no provision even under section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code to transfer investigation from one place to another. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra) deals with the transfer of a case of which cognizance was taken by the CJM. In the present case, yet no cognizance has been taken and matter is only at the investigation stage, and therefore, the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioner in the present case. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.