Mohd Hasan vs State Of U.P. And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 14548 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment reserved on 21.09.2022
 
Judgment delivered on 20.10.2022
 
Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7750 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd Hasan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rammani Giri,Shamim Uddin Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Applicant has approached this Court challenging charge sheet dated 09.01.2020 and order of cognizance dated 14.01.2020 passed in Case No. 214 of 2020 (State vs. Mohammad Hasan) under Sections 498-A, 506, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2019, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Prayagraj. Along with application, he has annexed a copy of police report and only typed copy of statements of independent witnesses allegedly recorded by the I.O. and has placed his entire case on those statements. The applicant has not annexed copy of statement of any proposed witness as well as has not annexed copy of statement given by the victim (his wife) under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant who is challenging the charge sheet is not permitted to file only such documents of case diary which suits his case. This is nothing but selective filing which cannot be termed as a fair approach towards this Court, when he is seeking exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The averment in regard to statements of selected witness are mentioned in paragraph 5 and 6 of application and in the affidavit sworn by applicant himself declares that the averment of said paragraph are ''based on record' without any caveat, therefore, it would be deemed that the applicant has entire paper of case diary, however, to annex only such documents which favours the applicant's case and intentionally not disclosing or making any averment in regard to statement of other witness specifically his wife's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as even not disclosing that such statement was recorded during investigation are nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court and, therefore, present application being abuse of process of law and can be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. However, this application is pending for last two years and the arguments are raised on merit also, therefore, the Court proceeds to consider the submissions.

5. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of charge sheet under the offence referred above. The main argument of learned counsel for applicant is that according to contents of F.I.R. that the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of district Kanpur Nagar and district Unnao and no alleged incident took place within the jurisdiction of district Prayagraj, therefore, F.I.R. lodged at Prayagraj and investigation thereof was beyond jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel further submits that certain offences made in the F.I.R. under Sections 313, 307, 376-D, 377 I.P.C. were not found to be true, therefore, entire allegations were based on false premises and liable to be quashed accordingly. The applicant has never demanded any dowry or committed cruelty for the same.

7. The above submissions were opposed by Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Sri Ms. Rammani Giri, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and submitted that not only there are specific allegations against the applicant no.1 but after a fair investigation, other co-accused and offences referred above were exonerated and dropped. Learned counsel further submitted that it was a continuing offence, therefore, there was no error of jurisdiction.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. As referred above, the applicant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material part of record and placed his entire case that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, without disclosing the statements which are relied upon in the charge sheet.

10. The matter was initially referred to the mediation centre but parties were not able to enter into an agreement and as such mediation proceedings were failed.

11. The victim in the first information report has specifically mentioned that the applicant left his parental house at Kanpur on 28.09.2017 and thereafter she came to Prayagraj to reside along with her brother and waited that her husband i.e. applicant No.1 might came to take her along with him but it could not happen and in these circumstances she filed a complaint on 29.11.2018, which was lodged as a FIR on 31.07.2019.

12. A Single Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 10 SCC 92 has summarized the principles laid down from Section 177 to 184 Cr.P.C. regarding jurisdiction of criminal Court in trial and has held in paragraph 21 (4) that ''In the case of a continuing offence which is committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.'.

13. In the present case, the victim was subjected to cruelty by the applicant (husband) and which forced her to reside with her brother and the desertion also falls under the meaning of cruelty which also includes mental cruelty. Therefore, it being a continuous offence, FIR could be lodged at Allahabad and cognizance could be taken by Court having jurisdiction at Allahabad.

14. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for applicants is rejected.

15. So far as other arguments are concerned, since the applicant has not placed on record the statement of applicant, his wife, his brother as well as other witnesses, relied by Investigating Officer, therefore, the conclusion of I.O. cannot be interfered and further from the contents of F.I.R., the victim was facing cruelty committed by applicant soon after his marriage in the year 2013 and which remained continued. She was not only harassed due to demand of dowry which was specific so much as a big car as well as flat in district Kanpur, was demanded, therefore, as held in Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised only when the contents of complaint are frivolous and not made out, however, as discussed above, not only contents in F.I.R. are found to be true, but detail of investigation discloses that the offence referred above are clearly made out.

16. Before parting, as discussed above that the present application has been filed challenging the charge sheet on the basis of selective documents. The applicant challenging the charge sheet and further criminal proceedings, is required to give a declaration that the documents of charge sheet are filed in its entirety or it can be produced at the time of argument, in case called by the Court and if he does not possess such document, a declaration to this effect shall also be made part of the affidavit and in this regard, relevant amendment in the High Court Rules, if necessary, be carried out and for that purpose a copy of this order be placed alongwith records before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration.

17. With the above observations, the application stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by applicant in favour of High Court Legal Service Authority.

Order Date :- October 20, 2022

Nirmal Sinha/AK