Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 217 (UTT)

ALOK NAITHANI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020-03-17

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code') has been preferred to quash the order the order dated 14.01.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 230 of 2019, Alok Naithani and Others Vs. State, by the court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun (for short ‘the revision') as well as the order dated 20.09.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 337 of 2018, State Vs. Alok Naithani and Others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh (for short ‘the case'). 2. By the impugned order dated 20.09.2019, an application for discharge filed by the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction has been rejected and this order dated 20.09.2019 passed in the case has been upheld by the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 passed in the revision. 3. It appears that an FIR was filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioners on 19.01.2018 under section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is this FIR, in which after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted, which is basis of the case. At the stage of framing of the charge, an application for discharge was filed by the petitioners on the ground that the alleged incident occurred in Forest Colony, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal, therefore, Police at Rishikesh, District Dehradun could not have investigated and submitted the charge-sheet in the matter. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed in the case, the application was rejected and court directed that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge under section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners. This order was further challenged by the petitioners in the revision. The revision was dismissed. Aggrieved, the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the orders are not lawful; the judgment in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of U.P. (2019) 5 SCC 384 is subject to various aspects. It is argued that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter properly and even the petitioners have not been examined by him. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 300 . It is argued that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter properly and even the petitioners have not been examined by him. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 300 . Especially, reference has been made to paragraph 7 of the judgment, which is as hereunder:- “7. It is of some significance that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. The first informant is required to be examined; statements of his witnesses were required to be taken; the accused were also required to be interrogated. The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged." 5. It may be noted here that issue in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri (supra) was with regard to transfer of investigation from one Police Station to another. In that case, when petition was filed, investigation was transferred merely on the basis of the statement given by counsel representing State. 6. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to another petition, which was filed by respondent no.2 that being C-482 No. 2745 of 2019, Meenakshi Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand. In that petition, respondent no.2 moved an application against the order rejecting her application for further investigation. Notices have been issued in C-482 No.2745 of 2019 and proceedings of the court below has been ordered to be stayed but that is entirely different aspect. That relates to the application under section 173 (8) of the Code filed by respondent no.2, which is unconnected with the instant matter. 7. In the instant case, application for discharge has been filed solely on the ground that respondent no.2 after marriage had gone to her in-laws house at Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal, where, according to the FIR, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, therefore, court at Rishikesh, District Dehradun has no territorial jurisdiction. 8. In the case of Rupali Devi (Supra), Hon'ble Court, in the very first paragraph posed the question which was for consideration in that case. 8. In the case of Rupali Devi (Supra), Hon'ble Court, in the very first paragraph posed the question which was for consideration in that case. It is as hereunder:- “Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members? This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals." 9. In paragraph 16, answer to the above has been given, which is as hereunder “16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under section 498-A of the Penal Code." 10. Undoubtedly, there cannot be any absolute rule without factual relevance. Each principle of law depends upon facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, in paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of Rupali Devi (supra), Hon'ble Court interpreted the word ‘cruelty' and held that the emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. 11. In the instant case, FIR categorically states about cruelty and harassment that was meeted out to respondent no.2. The tone and tenor of the FIR, in fact, reflects that respondent no.2 wanted to save her matrimonial life. She was requesting the Police Officers to save her family. Even if she was not subjected to cruelty within the district Dehradun, but, it does not mean that the Police in District Rishikesh or Courts at Rishikesh has no jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in the case of Rupali Devi (supra). 12. This Court is of the definite view that Court at Rishikesh, District Dehradun has territorial jurisdiction of this case and learned court below did not commit any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharge. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the matter. Accordingly the instant petition under section 482 of the Code deserves to be dismissed. 13. This Court is of the definite view that Court at Rishikesh, District Dehradun has territorial jurisdiction of this case and learned court below did not commit any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharge. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the matter. Accordingly the instant petition under section 482 of the Code deserves to be dismissed. 13. The instant petition is dismissed.