Anil Kumar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 1556 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. 54
 

 
Criminal  Misc. Application No. 13306 of 2011
 
Anil Kumar Singh and another Versus State of U.P. and another
 
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been moved by the applicant Anil Kumar Singh, V.N.Singh and Smt. Vindhyavashani Devi with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.124 of 2011 arising out of charge sheet submitted in case crime no. 61 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 323,504 and 406 I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act PS. Mahila Thana district Gorakhpur.

The fact in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by O.P. No.2 Smt. Rasmi Singh against the applicants in case crime 61 of 2010 under sections 498-A,323,504 and 406 I.P.C. and section 3/ 4 of D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana district Gorakhpur on 17.9.2010 at 6.10. p.m., applicant no. 1 Anil Kumar Singh is the husband of O.P. No.2, applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P. No.2 respectively. It is alleged that according to Hindu rites marriage of O.P. No.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 Anil Kumar Singh on 20.6.2007 from Gorakhpur. The in-laws of O.P. No.2 is the resident of village Kolha Chauraha P.S. Gulriha district Gorakhpur but at the time of the marriage, they were living in New Delhi, after marriage O.P. No.2 went to Kolha Chauraha, after one week she along with her in-laws went to Delhi where she was residing along with her in-laws, she got service in a private hospital at Delhi. In dowry Rs. 3 lacs and other articles including T.V. Fridge and golden ornaments etc. were taken by her in-laws from her father. On 27.11.2007, the husband of O.P. No. 2, who was a Mechanical Engineer went to Norway, where he got the job, then O.P. No.2 also joined the course of D.N.B. then at the instigation of her husband, her mother-in-law and father-in-law subjected her to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry, they demanded Rs. 5 lacs and a luxury car, they also extended threat that in case the demand of dory is not fulfilled, she would be expelled from the house and second marriage to their son would be performed in which they would get double dowry, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P.No. 2 were hurling abuses whenever she was going to take the class, sometimes she was bolted inside the room by her in-laws. They were asking her to bring more money from Gorakhpur. On one day, she was beaten by them and expelled from the house, then she lived in the hospital and some other places on rent, she called her father from Gorakhpur to Delhi. Anyhow, her in-laws could be pacified by her father on repeated request and then she was permitted to live in the house of her husband. After 15 days of the said incident, a telephonic message of her husband was received by her in-laws, then they again demanded dowry for which she was subjected to cruelty, whenever her husband come from Norway, she was apprised about the cruelty and demand of dowry, he also used to beat her and she was bolted inside the room by saying that if the dowry is not brought by her, she would be dealt with like this, she was extended threat that she would be expelled from the house and second marriage would be performed in which huge dowry would be received. The father of O.P. No.2 was not in a position to fulfill the demand of dowry, he had given an amount of Rs. 3 lacks to her in-laws in marriage after selling away his land, but to maintain matrimonial relationship an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was given to her husband on 18.7.2008 and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through cheque was given on 29.10.2008 even then her in-laws were not satisfied, they were committing cruelty upon her to fulfill the demand of dowry, they have taken her Stridhan and other articles, which were given by her father in marriage, her husband came from Norway on 15.9.2010 after two or three days of his arrival, she was brought to Gorakhpur and was dropped at the railway station of Gorakhpur after doing mar-peet, its F.I.R. was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 17.9.2010 at P.S. Mahila Thana Gorakhpur.

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, and Sri Kamal Kishore Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that according to the F.I.R. itself the marriage of the daughter was solemnized with applicant no.2 on 20.6.2007, after marriage she went to Delhi where she was residing in the company of her in-laws. Admittedly, applicant no.1 went to Norway, where he was serving as a Mechanical Engineer, O.P. No.2 was also living at New Delhi along-with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. There was no occasion to make the demand of dowry and subjecting O.P. No.2 to cruelty. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and no demand of dowry was made by the applicants from the father of O.P. No.2, O.P. No.2 was serving in a private hospital and she has joined D.N.B. course. The allegation made against the applicants are false and frivolous, F.I.R. has been lodged only because the husband of O.P. No.2 was serving at Norway and she was not satisfied to live in the company of her father-in-law and mother-in-law.

According to the allegations made in the F.I.R. the demand of dowry was made at Delhi and O.P. No.2 was subjected to cruelty at New Delhi, no such offence was committed at Gorakhpur where the F.I.R. was lodged. The allegation made against the applicants that after committing the mar-peet and hurling the abuse, she was taken to Gorakhpur from Delhi and she was dropped at Gorakhpur Railway Station, after doing mar-peet and hurling abuses, is absolutely false ,frivolous and baseless, but O.P. No.2 was using the mobile phone no. 9958318926.The call details of this phone shows that it was used in Delhi from 17.9.2010 to 19.9.2010 which shows that O.P. No.2 was not taken to Gorakhpur Railway Station on 17.7.2010, she had made transaction of money from the bank of Delhi also, this allegation has been made only to create a cause of action.

The alleged occurrence has taken place in Delhi but the court at Gorakhpur was having no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the Officer- In- charge of the P.S. Mahila Thana district Gorakhpur, even the police of Gorakhpur was not having territorial jurisdiction to make the investigation of this case.

In the present case charge sheet dated 6.1.2011has been submitted in the court of learned magistrate concerned on which the learned magistrate concerned has taken cognizance on 4.4.2011, the charge sheet has been submitted on the basis of the statement of O.P. No.2 Smt. Rasmi Singh, her father Vijai Pal Singh, her mother Smt. Urmila Singh, Shailesh Kumar Singh and Sri Krishna Mohan Mall, their statements have been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but none of them except O.P. No.2 stated that O.P. No.2 was dropped by her in-laws at the Railway Station Gorakhpur, after beating and hurling abuses, which also shows that part of the offence has not been committed at Gorakhpur.

The allegations made against the applicants are not disclosing any cognizable offence, the proceedings have been initiated maliciously with oblique motive to harass and blackmail the applicants, the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the applicants is the misuse of the process of law, therefore, the criminal proceedings of the above mentioned case may be quashed.

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case according to the F.I.R. and the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. allegations of demand of dowry and subjecting O.P. No.2 to cruelty have been made against the applicants, it has also been alleged that Stridhan and other articles of O.P.No.2 have been taken by the applicants, thereafter, she has been expelled from the hose. It has also been alleged that O.P. No.2 was beaten by her in-laws and abuses were hurled upon her, the allegations made against the applicants are prima facie disclosing the commission of the offence punishable under section 498-A,323,504 and 406 I.P.C. and section ¾ of D.P. Act. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by O.P. No.2 herself at P.S. Mahila Thana, Gorakhpur on 17.9.2010, therefore, it cannot be said that she has not come to Gorakhpur from New Delhi on 17.9.2010, on the basis of the call details of a particular mobile phone. For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed but not accepted at this stage that mobile phone 9958319926 was used by O.P. No.2 it is not necessary that the mobile phone was brought by O.P. No.2 from Delhi to Gorakhpur, in the F.I.R. itself it is mentioned that the ornament O.P. No. 2 was taken by her in-laws the alleged offence is a continuing offence. According to the F.I.R. and the statement of O.P. No.2 she was taken by her in laws from Delhi to Gorakhpur, and after beating and hurling abuses, she was dropped at the Railway station of Gorakhpur where he was beaten and abused which shows the 'part of the cause of action' was at Gorakhpur also according to the provision of section177 and 178 the court of the C.J.M. Gorakhpur was having the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and the police of Gorakhpur was having territorial jurisdiction to make the investigation of the aforesaid offence. The learned magistrate has not committed any error in taking cognizance vide order dated 4.4.2011.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case F.I.R. has been lodged by O.P. No.2 who is the victim, she is the wife of applicant no.1, the daughter- in-law of applicants nos. 2 and 3. According to the F.I.R. her marriage was solemnized on 20.6.2007, with applicant no.1 at Gorakhpur, thereafter, she was taken to Delhi where demand of Rs. 5 lacs and a car was made as dowry and to fulfill the same she was subjected to cruelty, ultimately she was expelled from her in-laws house by committing mar-peet and hurling abuses, she was brought from Delhi to Gorakhpur Railway Station where she was beaten and abused and dropped there after leaving her at Railway station, Gorakhpur her husband went back to Delhi but O.P. No.2 herself lodged the F.I.R. on 17.9.2010, thereafter, the investigation has been done by the officer in charge of P.S. Mahila Thana Gorakhpur after completing the investigation the charge sheet dated 6.1.2011 has been submitted before the Court of learned C.J.M. Gorakhpur, after perusing the charge sheet the C.J.M. Gorakhpur has taken cognizance on 4.4.2011, the charge sheet has been submitted after recording the statement of O.P. No.2 Smt. Rasmi Singh, Vijai Pal Singh, Smt. Urmila Singh, Shailesh Kumar and Krishna Mohan Mall. According to the F.I.R. and the statements of Smt. Rasmi Singh, she was brought to Gorakhpur railway station from Delhi after doing mar-peet and hurling abuses she was dropped here Other witnesses have made allegations with regard to the demand of dowry cruelty and expelling the O.P. No.2 from her in- laws house. The allegations made in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the witnesses are prima facie disclosing the commission of the offence punishable under sections 498-A,323,504 and 406 I.P.C. and section ¾ of D.P. Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the witnesses, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are not disclosing any cognizable offence, is disclosed is having no substance.

The next submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted that neither the police of Gorakhpur was having the territorial jurisdiction to make investigation of this case nor the C.J.M. Gorakhpur was having the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. because the cause of action arose at New Delhi, no offence was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of district Gorakhpur, to deal with the issue a perusal of facts of this case and sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. 1973 is necessary required. The section 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. read as under:

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or

(c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or

(d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

Section 178(c) shows that where an offence is continuing offence and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, upon the facts of the present case, the provision of section 178(c) Cr.P.C. are applicable because the offence of cruelty/ mal- treatment to fulfill the demand of Rs. 5 lacs and a car, is a continuing offence, she was subject to cruelty, ultimately she was expelled from her in-laws house of Delhi, she was taken to the Railway station Gorakhpur, where she was dropped after beating and abuses it shows that the cruelty/maltreatment remained continue from Delhi to Gorakhpur where her father was living, in view of the provisions of section 178(c) Cr.P.C. the offence may be inquired into or tried by the court where the offence of harassment and mar-peet has taken place i.e. from in-laws house and also where the harassment continued i.e. the place where she was dropped after torture, O.P. No.2 was dropped at Gorakhpur Railway station where she was beaten, abused, the Court of Gorakhpur was having the jurisdiction to try the case, the act or omission committed by the in-laws by which O.P. No. 2 was beaten and abused and dropped at the railway station Gorakhpur may not be an isolated event, consequently, all the series of the incidents of cruelty and event of the Gorakhpur gives rise the cause of action to Gorakhpur also the court of C.J.M. Gorakhpur was competent court to take cognizance on the charge sheet submitted against the applicants, the police of district Gorakhpur was also having the territorial jurisdiction to make investigation of this case, There is no illegality in the submission of the charge sheet and in taking cognizance vide order dated 4.4.2011. There is no good ground to quash the proceedings of the above mentioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of above mentioned case is refused.

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within period of 30 days from today, and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009(4) S.C.C. 437.

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

Dt. 9.5.2011

NA