Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 741 (MP)

Anubhav Ajmani v. State of M. P.

2018-08-29

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being crestfallen by the pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior vide No. 5793/2018. Therefore, through this writ petition, petitioners are seeking writ, direction or order for stay over the going trial proceeding before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, till decision of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 211/2016 as well as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 15/2017 pending at High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner No. 1 -Anubhav and respondent No. 2/complainant -Garima Batra Ajmani was solemnÁed on 21.10.2007 at Jaipur (Rajasthan) as per Hindu Rites and Ritual. It appears that shortly after marriage, matrimonial relationship between newly wedded couple got soured and domestic incompatibility surfaced. As per submission, respondent No. 2 without any just and reasonable cause withdrawn from the company of respondent No. 1 on 9.5.2015 and started living with her parents. It appears that divorce proceedings by way of Case No. 2295/2015 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were instituted before the Family Court at Jaipur on 27.10.2015. As a counterblast to the divorce petition, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner, his parents, brother, uncle and aunt inter alia on 14.1.2016 at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior under section 498A and 34 of IPC vide crime No. 11/2016 for dowry demand. 3. Petitioners No. 1to3 moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of FIR referred above before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench and after hearing the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction, the order dated 27.5.2016 was passed to the effect that the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy and to adjudicate tenability of FIR. Later on, Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 2.6.2016 was pleased to issue notice to respondent No. 2 and was further pleased to pass the order that no coercive steps shall be taken. 4. It appears that respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 27.5.2016 and 2.6.2016 before the Hon'ble apex Court vide SLP No. 6071-6072/2016 and Hon'ble apex Court without issuing notice dismissed the said SLP by a composite order dated 12.8.2016. 4. It appears that respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 27.5.2016 and 2.6.2016 before the Hon'ble apex Court vide SLP No. 6071-6072/2016 and Hon'ble apex Court without issuing notice dismissed the said SLP by a composite order dated 12.8.2016. Liberty was given to the petitioner (respondent No. 2/complainant) to agitate the point of jurisdiction before the Rajasthan High Court by referring pendency of parallel proceeding before High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 5. Petitioners No. 4 to 6 filed two separate petitions under section 482 of CrPC before this Court for quashment of FIR but later on same were withdrawn on 16.12.2016. It further appears that respondent No. 2 filed a transfer petition under section 25 of CPC before the Hon'ble apex Court but the same was dismissed on 17.7.2017. Gwalior police despite interim order of Rajasthan High Court dated 2.6.2016 issued notice to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court because charge-sheet under section 173(2) of CrPC had to be filed on 31.10.2017, compelled the petitioners to prefer contempt petition under sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act before Rajasthan High Court for initiation of contempt proceeding for alleged contravention of the order dated 2.6.2016 and 7.4.2017 passed by the Rajasthan High Court. Said contempt petition was dismissed vide composite order dated 8.11.2017 observing that proceeding before the trial Court would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 6. It further appears from submission and pleadings that while acting upon the charge-sheet dated 24.11.2017, JMFC, Gwalior i.e. trial Court took cognÁance against the petitioners for the offence under section 498A read with section 34 of IPC. It further appears that petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 80/2018 before Hon'ble apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and same was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2018 and liberty was given to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It was made clear that petitioners may approach Rajasthan High Court for early disposal of the case. Since charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and trial is pending against them before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, therefore, this petition has been preferred seeking stay over the trial proceeding till the petition referred above pending before the Rajasthan High Court attain culmination. 7. Since charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and trial is pending against them before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, therefore, this petition has been preferred seeking stay over the trial proceeding till the petition referred above pending before the Rajasthan High Court attain culmination. 7. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, petitioners took exception to the registration of FIR at Gwalior and filed petition before the Rajasthan High Court which is pending and proceedings pending before the trial Court are subject to final outcome of writ petition pending before the Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, in the fitness of things it is imperative that the trial pending before the JMFC, Gwalior shall be stayed and outcome of the writ petition be seen else petitioners would suffer adversely. It is further submitted that parallel proceedings are going on wherein trial Court at Madhya Pradesh is proceeding with trial and framed the charges against the petitioners whereas writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court has not reached to the stage of final hearing and if proceedings of trial Court are not stayed then it would lead to elimination of legal remedy of petitioners. Police at Gwalior had no authority and jurisdiction to file charge-sheet despite the order dated 2.6.2016 and Police at Gwalior has most brazenly trampled the ratio of judgment of apex Court delivered in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (2000) 7 SCC 640 ]. The action and inaction of the respondents is writ large, violation of fundamental rights of petitioners are apparent and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents matched the volume and vehemence of petitioners on same pitch. According to learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2, plethora of proceedings initiated at the instance of parties indicate that matter has been ceased off by Rajasthan High Court and the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur has found the case as maintainable in respect of territorial jurisdiction before the said Court and therefore, taken cognÁance of it. The said petition was in fact preferred at their instance only. The said petition was in fact preferred at their instance only. When territorial jurisdiction was put to challenge by respondent No. 2 before the Hon'ble apex Court, same resulted into dismissal because SLP preferred by respondent No. 2 was dismissed and liberty was given to agitate the point of jurisdiction by referring to the pendency of parallel proceeding before this Court. The said criminal proceedings vide MCrCNo. 1996/2016 and 1997/2016 were withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioners and therefore, those petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on the same date i.e. 16-02-2016. Therefore, no proceeding are pending before High Court of Madhya Pradesh except the present writ petition and another writ petition vide No. 14466/2018 and both are subsequent in nature. Learned senior counsel referred different orders passed by the Hon'ble apex Court as well as Rajasthan High Court to indicate that when the matter is taken care of by the High Court of Rajasthan then they will have to avail their remedy before the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. Police officers have proceeded as per the provisions of CrPC and their actions have been revalidated by the order of Rajasthan High Court in contempt petition where prohibition of coercive action has been interpreted by it. He prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused documents appended with petition. 10. From perusal of proceedings, it appears that the case involves chequered history where souring of matrimonial relationship resulted into registration of spree of litigations with claims and counter claims. The case in hand, wherein a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking stay over the proceedings of criminal case pending before the trial Court, Gwalior but that FIR which was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 2 vide Crime No. 11/2016 under section 498A read with section 34 of IPC has been challenged by the petitioners by way of Writ Petition No. 211/2016 at High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench and the same is pending consideration. Learned Single Judge at Jaipur vide order dated 27.5.2016 considered the question of jurisdiction and while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), found petition maintainable and cause of action within territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and proceeded with hearing of the matter and on dated 2.6.2016 passed the order wherein Police Authority at Gwalior were directed not to take coercive action against the petitioners. It appears that the order of cognÁance and interim order dated 2.6.2016 were put to challenge by respondent No. 2 before the Hon'ble apex Court by way of SLP but the same were dismissed and liberty was given to agitate the point of jurisdiction before High Court of Rajasthan. It appears that the another transfer petition which was preferred at the instance of respondent No. 2 was dismissed by way of SLP No. 1088-1089/2017 (Annexure P-6). It further appears that writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was preferred by the petitioners before the Hon'ble apex Court but the same resulted into dismissal with direction to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and with a specific direction to the petitioners to approach the High Court of Rajasthan for early disposal of the case. Quintessentially, the Hon'ble apex Court declined to interfere into the matter and repeatedly directed the parties to get their matter adjudicated before the High Court of Rajasthan by making appropriate prayer. Since the matter is pending before High Court of Rajasthan by way of writ petition (Criminal) No. 211/2016 as well as Writ Petition No. 15/2017, it is in the fitness of things that matter should be heard and decided by the High Court of Rajasthan itself and judicial propriety also demands that this Court should not venture into by passing any order final or interim to caste shadow over the fate of FIR (and charge-sheet filed consequent to it) which is under Judicial Scrutiny before High Court of Rajasthan and that Court has seÁed off the matter. 11. 11. Since the matter is pending before the High Court of Rajasthan and specially when question of territorial jurisdiction has been decided by the said High Court and Hon'ble apex Court confirmed the said order although with caveat of reiteration of arguments again before the same High Court, therefore, no scope for interference exists. 12. Considering the spree of litigations initiated at the instance of parties as well as the fact that petitions are pending before the High Court of Rajasthan challenging registration of FIR and consequent proceedings this Court decline to interfere in any manner. Needless to say that petitioners have to resort to their other legal remedies as available to them in accordance with law. 13. Petition sans merits, admission declined and is hereby dismissed.