Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 11
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM
H. Mohamed Ibrahim Kaleel & Others
Versus
The State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station & Another
Crl.R.C.Nos.188 of 2007 & 189 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2007
Decided On : 02-01-2008
For the Petitioners:AR.L. Sundaresan Senior Counsel for M/s. AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P. Rajendran Government Advocate, (Criminal side), R2, C. Nagamuthu, Advocate.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 91, 177, 178 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai to decide the culpability of the accused and the applicability of Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. The court held that the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai had no jurisdiction to decide the alleged criminality of the accused and that Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked against the accused. The court allowed Criminal Revision Case No.189 of 2007 and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, discharging the accused from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.509 of 2004 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged dowry torture and accused were seeking discharge from the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai had no jurisdiction to decide the alleged criminality of the accused and that Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked against the accused. The court allowed Criminal Revision Case No.189 of 2007 and set aside the order discharging the accused from the proceedings.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai to decide the culpability of the accused and the applicability of Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai had no jurisdiction to decide the alleged criminality of the accused and that Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked against the accused.
Final Decision: Criminal Revision Case No.189 of 2007 was allowed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai was set aside, discharging the accused from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.509 of 2004 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.
These criminal revision cases have been filed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.540 & 398 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.509 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai.
2. The second respondent in Criminal Revision Case No.188 of 2007 as petitioner has filed the petition in question under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.540 of 2007 praying to issue search warrant. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side has allowed the same. The revision petitioners as petitioners have filed a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007 praying to discharge them from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.509 of 2004. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed the same.
3. Since common question of laws and facts are involved, common order is passed in Criminal Revision Case Nos.188 & 189 of 2007.
4. Before per pending the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be apropos to perorate the circumstances under which Crl.M.P.Nos.540 & 398 of 2007 have been filed. The second respondent in both the revision cases has lodged the complaint in question on 21.08.2004 and the same has been registered in Crime No.5 of 2004 under Sections 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein the revision petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused.
5. In the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the marriage between the second respondent (complainant), the first accused viz., Mohamed Ibrahim Kaleel, has been conducted on 25.09.1995 and at the time of marriage as required by the first accused and his relatives, the parents of the second respondent (complainant) have given 150 Sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.2,00,000/-and household articles by way of dowry and at the time of marriage, the first accused has run a printing press which resulted in heavy loss. In the meanwhile, the second respondent (complainant) has given birth to a child, but, unfortunately the same has passed away. After few days, the parents of the second respondent have dropped her in the house of the first accused at Tiruchirapalli. The first accused and other accused have tortured the second respondent to get money from her parents so as to build a house. The first accused without the knowledge of the second respondent (complainant) has kept certain jewels in bank lockers and subsequently, sold some jewels and by utilising sale proceeds, the first accused has gone to Malaysia. After some time, the second respondent (complainant) has gone to Malaysia and he has given birth to a child. Further it is stated in the complaint that the in-laws of the second respondent (complainant) have also caused dowry torture and under the said circumstances, the complaint in question has been lodged.
6. The investigating agency after completing investigation has filed a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.509 of 2004. During the pendency of the Calendar Case No.509 of 2004, the second respondent (complainant) has filed Crl.M.P.No.540 of 2007 under Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the accused (revision petitioners) have filed Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. As adverted to earlier, Crl.M.P.No.540 of 2007 has been allowed and Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007 has been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. Against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.540 of 2007, Criminal Revision Case No.188 of 2007 has been filed and likewise, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.398 of 2007, Criminal Revision Case No.189 of 2007 has been filed.
8. For better appreciation and also for easy reference, the Court shall fi
