Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
Manohar Lal & 3 Others – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Another – Respondent
Application u/s 482 no - 25839 of 2017
Decided On : 04-10-2017
For the Applicant : Om Prakash Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of continuing offences, the court where such consequence ensued would have jurisdiction to try the offence.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Criminal Jurisdiction - Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - [Sections 498A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try a case related to Sections 498A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused argued that the incidents took place only at Faridabad (Haryana) and the court of Meerut had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence of cruelty and harassment for dowry is a continuing one, and therefore, the court where such consequence ensued would have jurisdiction to try the offence. It was established that the offence was of a continuing nature and the court at District Meerut had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the case under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where an offence is continuing and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, the enquiry or trial may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. The court also emphasized that cruelty includes mental as well as physical torture and would be treated as a continuing offence.
Final Decision: The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously within a period of four months.
SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding, the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in criminal revision no.225 of 2014 (Manohar Lal and others Vs. State of U.P.) and also the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut in case no.683 of 2013 (State Vs. Manohar Lal and others), under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant no.4 Sanjay Kumar was married with the opposite party no.2 Rajrani alias Komal daughter of Somnath, resident of Hastinapur, District Meerut on 28.11.1995. The marriage was solemnized at Hastinapur, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant no.4, Sanjay Kumar, his father Manohar Lal (applicant no.1), brother Chaman Kumar (applicant no.2), mother Smt. Nirmala Kanta (applicant no.3) are residents of District Faridabad (Haryana). Soon after the marriage the temperamental differences took place between the complainant/opposite party no.2 and the applicant no.4. The father of the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 14.07.1998, which culminated in case crime no.22 of 1999 and the proceedings as case no.683 of 2013 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and the same is pending at the final stage. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut made a noting on the complaint (F.I.R.) dated 14.07.1998 directing the Station Officer, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut that an FIR be registered and the same be forwarded to the concerned Police Station at District Faridabad (Haryana). It is also important to mention here that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut framed charge against the accused and at the time of framing charges, the court was duty bound to peruse the whole record i.e. FIR, case diary, charge sheet and other documents filed with the charge sheet. All it shows that the learned trial court took cognizance and framed charges only after perusal of all the documents on record. The charge was framed on 18.01.2001 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut which also discloses that the incidents took place only at Faridabad (Haryana) and questions were put to the applicants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut, which itself disclose that the incidents took place only at Faridabad (Haryana). All it shows that the court of Meerut had no jurisdiction to try the case. It has also been argued that when learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut took cognizance on the charge sheet, there is no signature of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the order taking cognizance, hence it cannot be said that any cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and he applied his mind at the time of taking of cognizance. The applicants are illiterate persons and they had no knowledge about the technicalities of law or procedure. When this fact came to their knowledge, they immediately filed an application in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut challenging the proceedings, which are void ab-initio for want of territorial jurisdiction, but the same was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 23.04.2014. Against this order, the applicants preferred a revision, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut vide impugned orde
