Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1170 (MP)

Nitin Singh v. State of M. P.

2017-11-15

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : ANAND PATHAK, J. 1. With consent heard finally. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 21-02-2017 passed by the trial Court whereby the charges for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the petitioner. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, FIR does not disclose cause of action to be ceased by the competent Criminal Court at Bhind. On the basis of omnibus allegations, without specific details time and place, manner of demand of dowry, no liability or culpability can be fastened over the petitioner in the case in hand. According to him, trial Court has wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, prayed for setting aside of impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submission made by the petitioner's counsel and prayed for dismissal of petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended to the petition. 5. Perusal of FIR indicates that husband -present petitioner has taken his wife/complainant from Kanpur to Bhind and thereafter and left her at Vyapar Mandal Dharmshala, Bhind saying that if she arranged Rs. 10 lacs from her parental house, only then she will be permitted to reside in matrimonial house. FIR also indicates that she had made complaint at the Family Counseling Center. 6. In respect of question of jurisdiction of the case is concerned, the same is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhind. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. is relevant in this regard. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "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 a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas then one, or (ci) (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." 7. Perusal of the said section as well as statements of the complainant and other family members indicate that the dowry demand has been made at Bhind also i.e. her paternal home, therefore, the complainant had the jurisdiction at Bhind also and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the respondent/prosecution to register the FIR and to investigate the matter and to file the charge-sheet as well as by the trial Court to initiate trial against the petitioner. 8. Once the FIR indicates that demand has been made at Bhind and date and place are specific then all other facts would be unfolded at the time of evidence. It would be too early to give verdict of innocence of petitioner on the basis of arguments advanced by the petitioner. Trial Court can very well take out the chaff from the grains once evidence is led by the parties is over. 9. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. provides certain exigencies which are applicable in the present case in its full dimensions. The contents of the FIR, wherein the complainant has made a statement about insulting behavior, insinuation and lust of the petitioner for dowry at Bhind, and the statements made by the complainant and her family members under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., are sufficiently elaborate and lucent in respect of demand of dowry by the petitioner. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 squarely applies here. 10. So far as the plea of petitioner that FIR contains omnibus allegations and no specific allegation, time and date has been mentioned, is concerned, the trial Court after considering the allegations made by the complainant and statements of family members of the complainant, framed the charges against the petitioner who is husband of complainant. Thus, at this juncture no interference can be made by this Court. Considering the fact situation of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed.