Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Keshav Singh Tomar and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6606 of 2015 (Gwalior);
Decided on 18.1.2017.
T.C. Narvariya with P.K. Tiwari for applicants;
Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for respondentNo.1/State;
R.K. Soni for respondent No.2.
Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.498A and 323 -- offence under -- quashing FIR -- charge-sheet already filed -- since a part of a cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of Police Station Morena -- therefore submissions that Court at Morena has no territorial jurisdiction to try applicants No.1 to 3 is misconceived and rejected -- there is prima facie material against applicants No.1 and 2 -- application filed by them dismissed -- with an intention to pressurize in-laws -- complaint over implicated distant relatives of her in-laws -- no sufficient material available on record against applicant No.3 -- application filed by applicant No.3 allowed and charge-sheet against her quashed -- petition partly allowed.
Held : As the applicants No.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and there is sufficient evidence against them to proceed, therefore, the application filed by the applicants No.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Considering the allegations made by the complainant against the applicant No.3, this Court is of the view that there is no sufficient material available on record against the applicant No.3 so as to compel her to face the ordeal of the trial.
Since a part of a cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Police Station Morena, therefore, this Court is of the view that the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants that the Court at Morena has no territorial jurisdiction to try the applicants No.1 to 3 is misconceived and, therefore, rejected. (2015)11 SCC 260, (2000)5 SCC 207 and (2015)13 SCC 693 followed.
naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 498d rFkk 323 & mica/kksa ds v/khu vijk/k & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kafMr gksuk & vkjksii= igys gh izLrqr & pw¡fd okn gsrqd dk ,d Hkkx iqfyl Fkkuk eqjSuk dh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj mRiUu gqvk & blfy, ;g fuosnu fd U;k;ky; eqjSuk vkosndx.k dz-1 ls 3 dk fopkj.k djus dh {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk Hkzked gS rFkk ukeatwj & izFken`"V~;k lkexzh vkosndx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 ds fo:} gS & muds }kjk izLrqr vkosnu [kkfjt & fj'rsnkjksa ij nokc Mkyus ds vk'k; ls & ifjoknh us vius fof/kd yksxksa ds nwj ds fj'rsnkjksa dks vR;kf/kd vkfyIr fd;k gS & vfHkys[k ij vkosnd dz-3 ds fo:} dksbZ i;kZIr lkexzh miyC/k ugha & vkosnd dz-3 }kjk izLrqr vkosnu eatwj rFkk mlds fo:} vkjksii= vfHk[kafMr & ;kfpdk vkaf'kd :i ls eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % pw¡fd vkosndx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 ifjoknh ds lkl rFkk 'olqj gSa rFkk muds fo:} dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, i;kZIr lk{; gS blfy, vkosndx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 }kjk izLrqr vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
vkonsd dz-3 ds fo:} ifjoknh }kjk fd, x, vfHkdFkuksa ij fopkj djrs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh ;g jk; gS fd vkosnd dz-3 ds fo:} vfHkys[k ij dksbZ i;kZIr lkexzh ugha ftlls mls fopkj.k dk lkeuk djus ds fy, foo'k fd;k tk ldsA
pw¡fd okn gsrqd dk ,d Hkkx iqfyl Fkkuk eqjSuk dh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj mRiUu gqvk] blfy, bl U;k;ky; dh ;g jk; gS fd vkosndx.k ds dkmUlsy }kjk fd;k x;k fuosnu fd U;k;ky; eqjSuk vkosndx.k dz-1 ls 3 dk fopkj.k djus ds fy, {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gS] Hkzked gS rFkk blfy, ukeatwj fd;k tkrk gSA ¼2015½ 11 ,l lh lh 260] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 207 rFkk ¼2015½ 13 ,l lh lh 693 vuqlfjrA
1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.139/2015 registered by Police Station Civil Line, Morena for offences punishable under sections 498A and 323 of IPC.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal for this petition are that a FIR was lodged by the complainant Arti on 2.4.2015 in Police Station Civil Line, Morena alleging that on 29.4.2013, she was married to Saurabh Tomar as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. Her father had given dowry as per his financial status. Applicants No.1, 2 and 3 had attended the marriage of the complainant and from the said date, her in-laws started saying that her parents have given less dowry and, therefore, she should bring two lacs rupees and more dowry and only then they will allow her to stay in the house. They also used to beat her. Her in-laws did not allow her to go to her parents house for the first two years and they were constantly beating her and she was also not allowed to talk to her parents. She is having a child aged about one year. Her parents and relatives also came to her matrimonial house and tried to convince the accused persons but they did not agree and on 25.1.2015, they left her in her parent’s house. On 24.3.2015, again her husband Saurabh and her younger brother-in-law Gaurav came to her parent’s house and assaulted her and made demand of dowry.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that so far as the applicant No.3 is concerned, she is the sister of mother-in-law of the complainant and she is resident of Kanpur whereas the applicants No.1 and 2 are residents of Gwalior. Merely because she had attended the marriage of the complainant, therefore, she has been made accused in the present case. There are no specific allegations against the applicant No.3. Even the vague and omnibus allegations have not been made against her.
4. It was further contended by the counsel for the applicants that even no specific allegations have been made against the applicants No.1 and 2. Only vague allegations have been made that they used to demand that she should bring more dowry as well as an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The allegation of beating the complainant is false and is an afterthought.
5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that as the entire allegations are in two parts, therefore, the Court at Morena has no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of his contention, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that as per the first part of the allegation, all the cruelty was done at Gwalior and second part of the allegation is that on 24.3.2015, the husband and younger brother-in-law of the complainant went to Morena, made a demand of dowry and gave her beating. Since, there is no allegation against the applicants No.1, 2 and 3 that they ever went to Morena and treated the complainant with cruelty at Morena, therefore, the applicants No.1,2 and 3 cannot be tried at Morena.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.1/State submitted that there are sufficient allegations available on record which prima facie show that the applicants have committed offences punishable under sections 498A and 323 of IPC.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants. It is submitted by him that as the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, now it is for the trial Court to decide that whether the applicants have committed any offence or not.
8. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicants, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Morena is concerned, the submissions of the counsel for the applicants that the allegations should be treated in two parts, cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle of law that even if a part of an incident has occurred within the jurisdiction of one police station, then that police station will also have the jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Undisputedly, the offence unde
