Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 374 (MP)

Swasti Nivedan Swarnkar v. State of M. P.

2016-05-05

M.K.MUDGAL

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pertaining to the FIR bearing Crime No.152 of 2012 for offence under section 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry prohibition Act. 2. The facts in nut-shell giving rise to this petition are that wife of petitioner no.3 Smt. Neema Soni had lodged a report at PS Gormi, District Bhind against the petitioners for offences punishable under section 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and on the basis of which, an FIR bearing Crime No.152 of 2012 was registered against present petitioners and charge sheet was filed and they are facing trial in the Court. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on perusal of the contents of the FIR and also from other material documents on record, it is apparent that alleged act of dowry demand had been committed at complainant's matrimonial home i.e. Burhanpur and said case cannot be tried in the Court situated at Mehgaon district Bhind. The complainant had left the house of her husband long before and thereafter there is not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting the alleged offence at Gormi. Hence, as per section 178(c) of the Code relating to the continuance of the offences cannot be applied. Therefore, no offence is made out against petitioners within the jurisdiction of the Court at Mehgaon and the case is exclusively triable by Burhanpur Court. Consequently, the criminal proceedings pertaining to the Crime No.152 of 2012 are to be quashed. 4. The contents of the FIR in brief are that the marriage of petitioner No.3 Rajeev, resident of Burhanpur and complainant Smt.Neema Soni took place on 29.5.2010 at Gwalior and her father gave Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry in the marriage. But since the time of marriage the petitioners-accused started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and began to harass her. Her husband Rajeev along with other co-accused forcibly got her pregnancy to be aborted in a hospital at Indore. Thereafter, the petitioner No.3 her husband took her to Gormi and left her at her parental house. But since the time of marriage the petitioners-accused started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and began to harass her. Her husband Rajeev along with other co-accused forcibly got her pregnancy to be aborted in a hospital at Indore. Thereafter, the petitioner No.3 her husband took her to Gormi and left her at her parental house. On the said allegations, an FIR bearing Crime No.152 of 2012 for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against petitioners-accused and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that as per the contents of FIR, it is clear that since the time of leaving the complainant at Gormi by her husband, she never went back to her in laws house at Burhanpur and nobody came from Burhanpur to Gormi to take her back to Burhanpur, consequently, it is apparent that no act of demand of dowry whatsoever and no part of said demand was ever made at Gormi pressurizing the complainant to fulfill the said demand. Hence, it can safely be said that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Gormi and the entire incident had taken place at Burhanpur, therefore, it lacks territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter at Gormi. Even otherwise, petitions filed under section 482 of CrPC against the co-accused persons arising out of the same crime number were entertained by a bench of this Court bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2030 of 2013 and 6489 of 2013 and were allowed vide order dated 5th February, 2015 quashing the entire proceedings pending against them of Crime No.152 of 2012. This fact is also not denied by the counsel for the State. Hence, to prevent the abuse of the process of law, this petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners bearing Crime No.152 of 2012 be also quashed. 6. Heard rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. This fact is also not denied by the counsel for the State. Hence, to prevent the abuse of the process of law, this petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners bearing Crime No.152 of 2012 be also quashed. 6. Heard rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. For this purpose, before going into the merits of the case, it would be relevant to go through the provisions of section 178 of CrPC as it deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial which reads as follows : Section 178: Place of inquiry or trial : (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired. Into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has stated in her statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC and in the first information report lodged by her that all alleged demands of dowry and cruelty were made by petitioners-accused and her in-laws when she was at Burhanpur. There is no whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act of cruelty with her at Gormi, District Bhind. That being so, the logic of section 178 (a) of Code relating to ‘continuance of offence' cannot be applied here. Furthermore, a Bench of this as stated herein above taking into account the same principle has quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the co-accused in Crime No.152 of 2012 for offence under section 498A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which squarely covers the field of this case as well. Even no material is available on record to take a different view than that which was taken earlier by a Bench of this Court in that case. 9. Even no material is available on record to take a different view than that which was taken earlier by a Bench of this Court in that case. 9. Considering the facts of the case, this petition is allowed and the entire proceedings of Crime No.152 of 2012 registered by PS Gormi, District Bhind against the petitioners for commission of offence under section 498A of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.