Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 197 (UTT)

Jayesh Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-13

RAVI MALIMATH

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, J. - Present petition, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in criminal complaint case no. 2429 of 2015 under section 498A IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is the plea of the petitioner that the mandatory procedure under section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed, as a consequence whereof an interim order was granted on 03.08.2015, staying the further proceedings in the criminal case. 3. An application has been filed by respondent no. 2 seeking to vacate the stay order. 4. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is absent. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the learned counsel has remained absent since he has filed the counter affidavit. It is the further plea of the petitioner that the couple are residing together for the last three years, as per the instruction received from his client. It appears that respondent no. 2 is no more interested to prosecute the matter further. 5. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 in the case Vijay Dhanuka & ors. vs. Najima Mamtaj & ors ., and made reference to para 12 of the judgment. It is his plea that accused no. 1 is residing in Tripura, accused no. 2 is resident of State of Gujarat and accused no. 3 is resident of State of Bihar, therefore, an inquiry would have to be held by the Magistrate before proceeding further in the matter. 6. On hearing learned counsel, I am of the view that appropriate interference is called for. The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is clear so far as the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The Honble Supreme Court in the judgment of Vijay Dhanuka (supra) has held that an inquiry is mandatory in a case where the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who exercises his jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above judgment of the Honble Supreme Court the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.02.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. 7. In view of the above judgment of the Honble Supreme Court the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.02.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar, who shall consider the case in terms of the judgment of the Honble Apex in the case Vijay Dhanuka (supra) and thereafter proceed in a manner, according to law.