Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Rajendra Panwar S/o Vishnu Prasad and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.14583 of 2023
Decided on 24.1.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Shri Akshat Pahadia, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Shri Amay Bajaj - P.L./G.A.
For the Respondent No.2:Shri Paras Chandra Vaya - Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Although for trial of a case instituted on a police report no provision parallel to Section 201 of Cr.P.C. has been prescribed, there is no difficulty in borrowing remedy provided in Section 201 of Cr.P.C. for curing defect which has crept into this case which is entirely curable.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 506 and 34 read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 170 and 482 read with Article 226 of Constitution of India – Dowry offences – Territorial jurisdiction of Court – There is no specific provision as to how Magistrate not having territorial jurisdiction over subject matter of offence should deal with a police report which is presented to him – Only option for Magistrate is to return report to officer in charge of police station so that he could comply with provisions of Section 170, Cr. P.C. – Although for trial of a case instituted on a police report no provision parallel to Section 201 of Cr.P.C. has been prescribed, there is no difficulty in borrowing remedy provided in Section 201 of Cr.P.C. for curing defect which has crept into this case which is entirely curable – Irregularity is not one which vitiates entire proceedings – It was duty of Court to proceed further only after ensuring that it has territorial jurisdiction to try case – J.M.F.C. directed to handover charge-sheet back to SHO to present charge-sheet in appropriate Court. (Paras 13 and 14)
Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.0524/2022, at police station Anjad dated 30.09.2022, under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as also the charge-sheet dated 24.10.2022, and other subsequent proceedings before the Trial Court arising out of the aforesaid crime number.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner No.1 Rajendra Panwar was solemnized with the respondent No.2 Durga Panwar on 24.04.2011, at Kukshi, District Dhar. Subsequently, out of this wedlock, a daughter was also born after around 7-8 years, however, as a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, the aforesaid FIR was lodged at Police Station, Anjad, against the petitioner No.1 as also his parents, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant/ respondent No.2.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even on perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that although it has been lodged at Police Station Anjad, however, none of the cause of actions has taken place at Anjad as admittedly, the marriage took place at Kukshi and the other incident which the complainant has referred to regarding assault by her husband, has taken place outside the Barwani Court premises.

5. Counsel has submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Anjad, there is no other fact mentioned in the FIR which would give rise to lodging of the aforesaid offences/FIR at Anjad. Counsel has submitted that the Police Station Anjad had no territorial jurisdiction to lodge the FIR and consequently, the Criminal Court at Anjad also had no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence as none of the incidents have taken place at Anjad.

6. In support of his submissions, counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendu Jyoti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported as 2014(3) ACR 2740 (SC) as also the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jay Prakash and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the FIR as also the consequential criminal proceedings be quashed.

7. Counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the trial is at an advance stage and five witnesses have already been examined, thus no purpose would be served to quash the proceedings at this juncture. It is also submitted that otherwise also, since the complainant herself is a resident of Anjad she was well within her right to lodge the FIR at Anjad only.

8. Counsel for the respondent No.1/State, has also opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners have bypassed the remedy available to them under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. In support of his submissions, counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.

10. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Agrawal and Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and Others reported as (2021) 5 SCC 524, in which the Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings may be quashed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where it is found to be an abuse of the process of law.

11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amarendu Jyoti v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported as (2014) 12 SCC 362 is concerned, it would be apt to refer to the relevant paras 2, 11 and 12 of th