Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. SHARMA
SUMAN UPADHYAY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Revision 464 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/27/1999
CRIMINAL REVISION - SUMMONING OF ACCUSED - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PART OF CAUSE OF ACTION - EXTRANEUS MATERIALS - REJECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Smt. Jyoti Upadhyay, filed a complaint against her husband and other family members alleging harassment and ill-treatment on the ground of dowry. The Magistrate initially summoned only the husband, but on revision, the Additional Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to summon all the accused persons. The accused challenged the Magistrate's order, arguing that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the Magistrate erred in summoning them without taking further evidence after the remand order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case as part of the cause of action arose within his territorial jurisdiction. The Court also held that the Magistrate was not required to take further evidence after the remand order, as the Additional Sessions Judge's observations were binding on him and a further consideration of the evidence on record was sufficient.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 2. Whether the Magistrate erred in summoning the accused persons without taking further evidence after the remand order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case as part of the cause of action arose within his territorial jurisdiction. The Court noted that the entrustment of the dowry items had taken place at Bareilly at the time of marriage, and that even if any breach of trust was committed subsequently at another place, the complaint could be filed at Bareilly also where a part of the cause of action arose. 2. The Court held that the Magistrate was not required to take further evidence after the remand order, as the Additional Sessions Judge's observations were binding on him and a further consideration of the evidence on record was sufficient. The Court noted that Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Sessions Judge to direct the Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint, but that this does not mean that the Magistrate must take further evidence before passing further orders in the case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and vacated the stay order on the proceedings in the criminal case.
( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-1-1994 passed by Sri D. C. Awasthi, the then II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993 (Joyti Upadhyay v. Vinod Upadhyay and others) under Sections 498-A/406, I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, district Bareilly summoning the accused revisionists.
( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the accused revisionists and the learned A. G. A.
( 3 ) THE facts, leading to this revision, are that Smt. Jyoti Upadhyay, complainant opposite party No. 3 in this revision, filed a complaint on 4-1-1993 before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly against Vinod Upadhyay, Rama Shanker Updhayay, Bhanu Pratap Upadhyay, Smt. Indu Chaturvedi and Kamla Shanker Upadhyay, with the allegations that she was married to Vinod Upadhyay on 7-12-1989 at Bareilly according to Hindu rites that in the marriage, the father of the complainant had given Rs. 25,000. 00 in cash by way of draft, ornaments and other house hold effects valuing Rs. 1 lac by way of gift, that the suit case containing the ornaments and clothes had been handed over by the father of the complainant to her Jethani Smt. Suman and Nanad Indu after the marriage and the cash, which was received in Shagun, was paid to her Jeth Bhanu Pratap; that the draft of Rs. 25,000. 00 was handed over to her husband Vinod Upadhyay; that the other domestic goods such as bed, utensils as well as other house hold effects were handed over to these persons, that after the marriage, the complainant went to her in-laws house and lived there but her father-in-law, mother-in- law, Jeth, Jithani and Nanad had started harassing and misbehaving with her on the ground of bringing less dowry; that for the said reason, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had turned her out of the house by keeping her articles; that thereafter, the complainant gave birth to a son but even thereafter her husband or her mother-in-law and father-in-law had not come to meet her nor any money was sent for expenses; that on account of this, the complainant is facing great mental agony, as neither her husband nor her mother-in-law and father -in-law came there to bring her back nor they returned her goods and that she is living at the house of her father at Bareilly. In the complaint, it was also alleged by the complainant that a registered notice was sent on 7-10-1992 to the accused person to which no reply was received and that they digested the said amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 and other articles valuing to Rs. 1 lac and consequently, they may be summoned d and necessary action be taken against them, i. e. the accused persons mentioned in the complaint.
( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Smt. Jyoti Upadhay under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements of Smt. Madhu Chandra as PW 1 and Devendra Nath Tandon as P. W 2 under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned Magistrate. Initially, the learned Magistrate being of the view that the offence under Sections 498-A/406, I. P. C. and S. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out only against the husband accused Vinod Upadhyay he ordered for summoning this accused alone and not any of the other accused 2 to 5 mentioned in the complaint vide his order dated 18-3-1993. Being aggrieved by this order, in so far as the learned Magistrate declined to summon the other accused persons mentioned in the complaint, the complainant Smt. Jyoti Upadhyay preferred Criminal Revision No. . 110 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Their revision ultimately came for disposal before Sri Mohd. Abid, the then learned Additional Sessions/special Judge, Bareilly. He took the view that a prima facie case of the offences under Sections 498-A/406, I. P. C. and Ss. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was made out not only against the complainants husband Vinod Upa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
