Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 300 (ALL)

Mukesh Pal v. State Of U. P.

2019-02-05

OM PRAKASH VII

body2019
JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 17015 of 2018 (Smt. Jyotsana Dutt Vs. Mukesh Kumar Pal and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar as well as the summoning order dated 9.8.2018 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Further, prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complainant case. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and his family members alleging that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant on 29.4.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Just after the marriage, applicant started to harass the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. She was assaulted by her husband and the applicant / husband also pressed her neck with intention to kill her. On 9.1.2018 she was dropped at her parental home at Kanpur in serious condition. On 27.2.2018 applicant and his family members went at the house of opposite party no.2 and made demand of additional dowry. When father of opposite party no.2 refused to accept the demand, they started assault to the opposite party no.2 and her father and mother. 3. Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. The summoning order is illegal and without application of judicial mind. Mandatory provisions provided under Section 202 CrPC have not been followed. Enquiry, as required under CrPC at the end of concerned Magistrate, has not been made. Applicant is resident of State of Punjab whereas summoning order was passed at District Kanpur Nagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was further submitted that Court below at Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the order dated 17.11.2018 passed in the application u/s 482 no. Applicant is resident of State of Punjab whereas summoning order was passed at District Kanpur Nagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was further submitted that Court below at Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the order dated 17.11.2018 passed in the application u/s 482 no. 41340 of 2018 and submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case in respect of co-accused have been stayed by another Bench this Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav; Arvind Kumar Yadav; Mithlesh Kumari and others vs. State of U.P.; Geeta Devi, 2013 LawSuit (All) 2092 and the decision of Apex Court in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, 2012 LawSuit (SC) 886. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that concerned Magistrate himself has made enquiry in the matter and has recorded statement of complainant and the witnesses on different dates. Hence, there is no violation of mandatory provisions of Section 202 CrPC. Referring to contents of the complaint, it was also submitted that specific averment has been made in the complaint that applicant had gone to the parental house of opposite party no.2 and also caused marpeet and harassment at that place i.e. at Kanpur Nagar, therefore, Court below at Kanpur Nagar had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the case laws. 7. In this matter, as is evident from the record, on filing of the complaint, statement of complainant was recorded on 27.4.2018. It also appears that statements of witnesses under Section 202 CrPC were recorded on 6.6.2018 and 9.7.2018 respectively and thereafter the summoning order was passed. If the ratio laid down in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is compared with the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the concerned Magistrate before passing the impugned summoning order has complied with the mandatory provisions provided under Section 202 CrPC. He himself made enquiry in the matter and recorded statements under Section 202 CrPC. He himself made enquiry in the matter and recorded statements under Section 202 CrPC. Thus, submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard is not acceptable. 8. As regards submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant about jurisdiction of the Court below at Kanpur Nagar is concerned, specific averment has been made in paragraph 8 of the complaint that applicant along with his family members had gone to the parental house of opposite party no.2 where she was present. It is also clear from the version of the complaint that she was ousted from his in-laws house and was dropped by the applicant at Kanpur. If such was the position, it cannot be said that Court situated at Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Part of the offence was also committed at Kanpur Nagar. Thus, submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard is also not acceptable. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, to adjudicate/ decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. 9. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and no interference is called for with the impugned order. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.