Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Laxmi Prasad – Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Application U/s 482 No. 3891 of 2017
Decided On : 03-07-2017
Dowry Demand - Jurisdiction - Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. - Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad to entertain the complaint and the charges under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The court also considered the allegations of demand of dowry and torture within the jurisdiction of the concerned court, and the rejection of the discharge application was justified based on the evidence on record. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, married to Jitendra Kumar, alleged demand of dowry and torture by the applicants, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, and nanad of the victim's sister. The victim resided with her husband separately in New Delhi, and specific allegations were made against the husband and to some extent against the applicants. The court found that no specific allegations were made against the applicant Nos.3 and 4, and the allegations against them were with oblique motive and to harass them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the discharge application of the applicant Nos.3 and 4 was manifest error of law and facts, and quashed the impugned order. The remaining part of the impugned order in relation to the applicant Nos.1 and 2 was not interfered with, as specific allegations of demand of dowry were made against them, supported by oral evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and the jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad to entertain the complaint and the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no specific allegations were made against the applicant Nos.3 and 4, and the allegations against them were with oblique motive and to harass them. The court also found that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad, and therefore, the rejection of the discharge application of the applicant Nos.3 and 4 was unjustified.
Final Decision: The application was partly allowed, and the applicant Nos.3 and 4 were discharged. The impugned order was modified and partly quashed.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
2. This application has been filed praying to quash the order dated 17.01.2017 in Complaint Case No. 543 of 2010 (Rama Shankar v. Jeetendra Kumar and others) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad whereby the discharge application of the applicants under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicants are as under:
(i) The applicants are residing at Delhi. The entire alleged offence took place at Delhi. Therefore, the court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to try the case.
(ii) No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and nanad of the sister of the opposite party No. 2. He refers to the statement of the victim Seema Jaiswal filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the application to submit that she has not even named the applicants herein for the allegation of dowry or any other allegation. The entire allegation has been levelled specifically against the husband namely Sri Jeetendra.
(iii) The complaint as well as the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. shows that no specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein rather specific allegations are only against the accused Jeetendra, who is husband.
(iv) Offence under Section 498A is not a continuing offence and, therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation of dowry against the applicants herein within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad, the court below was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the charges are groundless. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, (2007) 1 SCC 262 (para-12) is relied.
4. Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits as under:-
(i) Specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture within the jurisdiction of the concerned court below has been made in the complaint particularly in paragraphs-3, 4, 6 and 7.
(ii) Evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. also shows commission of offence by the applicants herein.
(iii) On the basis of evidences on record, it cannot be said that the allegations are groundless so as to attract the provisions of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
(iv) The charges have not yet been framed. The rejection of discharge application on the facts of the present case, is wholly justified.
(v) The offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and, therefore, the learned court below has the jurisdiction to try the case.
(vi) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, 1999 (4) SCC 690 and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (37) ACC 860 are relied.
(vii) The court concerned has lawfully rejected the discharge application inasmuch as the court cannot look in the matter beyond the limit provided under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also relied upon the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ranvijay Prasad Deo v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2007 Cr.L.J. 3553 the judgments of this court in the case of Daya Shanker Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (39) ACC 49; Yogeshwar Mishra and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (1) JIC 462 (All.); Ghanshyam Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (1) JIC 465 (All.); Prabhat Ranjan Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (37) ACC 860 and Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Premawati etc. v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 (1) JIC 257 (All.). On the basis of these judgments, he further submitted that acts of the applicants constituted offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Secti
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
