Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1 CRR-2385-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2385 of 2024
VINAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashley Johnmathew - Advocate for
petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent-State.
Shri Dileep K. Pandey - Advocate for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 (new sections 438 read with Section 442 of B.N.S.S.,
2023) against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in RCT No.1855/2022.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that
charges are framed against petitioner under Sections 498-A, 294, 323 & 506-
II of IPC, 1860 and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 vide
order dated 15.02.2024. Earlier, revision filed by petitioner was withdrawn
with liberty to file repeat application raising all available grounds and said
prayer was allowed.
3. A complaint was filed on 12.07.2022 at Mahila Thana Singrauli.
Marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2019 at Anandham Temple Village-
Jhurhi. Later on allegations were made that petitioner demanded Rs.10 Lacs
2 CRR-2385-2024
otherwise respondent no.2 will be driven out of the house. Gold and silver
ornaments or respondent no.2 were misappropriated by petitioner. Petitioner
used to lock her inside the house. He tortured her by abusing and assaulting.
Petitioner is said to have ousted respondent no.2 on 08.11.2021. Despite
repeated requests, she was not allowed to reside in the house. Place of
occurence of harassment and demand of dowry is said to have been made at
Shakti Nagar Sonbhadra (UP). It is submitted that Police Station-Singrauli
does not have any territorial jurisdiction to register the complaint as no cause
of action arose within vicinity of said police station. In statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C, similar allegations were made. Charge-sheet was filed
on 02.11.2022.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that complainant had filed an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before Superintendent of Police
Janpad-Sonbhadra (UP) and allegations were made against 13 persons.
Complainant suppressed the fact about said application. She did not disclose
the fact of registration of FIR in said application. Said application was not
pressed before the Court of CJM Sonbhadra (UP). Learned Sr. Counsel
during course of arguments also submitted that complaint was filed against
petitioner as a counterblast. Petitioner has filed an application under Section
10 of Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 05.11.2021 and notice of said
petition was served on 24.11.2021. Registered notice which was sent was
also delivered and confirmation was given in post office. Delivery of letter
was made on 01.12.2021. Only after service of notice of said petition,
complaint was made on 12.07.2022 as a counterblast. Complaint is actuated
3 CRR-2385-2024
by mala-fides. It is further submitted that petition filed under Section 10 of
Hindu Marriage Act is not part of charge-sheet but Court has ample power to
consider documents filed by the petitioner to decide whether complaint is
actuated by mala-fides and there is false implication of the petitioner. It is
submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that petition under Section 10 of Hindu
Marriage Act is proceeding of Court and documents are genuine and is of
great evidentiary value. If there is evidence of intrinsic value then Court can
always take into consideration such documents and there is no absolute bar
to consider other evidence of intrinsic value which is not part of charge-
sheet.
5. Counsel appearing for State as well as counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 also opposed the petition and it is submitted by him that
prima-facie allegations of demand of dowry and harassment is made in
complaint and also in statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C by
respondent no.2. Question of jurisdiction does not arise in this case. Apex
Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 5 SCC
384 has laid down the law that complaint can also be filed in place, where
consequences of a crime ensue. In this case, though demand of dowry and
harassment was made in U.P. but then she had shifted to Singrauli and living
along with her father. Repeated requests were made to go to the house of
petitioner but same was denied and she was under mental harassment at
Singrauli. Therefore, consequences befell upon respondent no.2 at Singrauli,
which gives a cause of action for filing FIR at Police Station-Mahila Thana
Singrauli. It is further submitted by him that copy of petition filed under
4 CRR-2385-2024
Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act and notices issued to respondent no.2
cannot be taken into consideration in criminal revision. Court cannot
examine the material which was not before Court framing charges. Said
material is not part of the charge-sheet, therefore, cannot be considered by
this Court in criminal revision. He made a prayer for dismissal of the
criminal revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. Apex Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(supra) has held that police station wherein a complainant is living and
suffered consequences of crime can also file a complaint within jurisdiction
of said police station. In this case, it has been alleged that consequences
befell upon the complainant at Singrauli, therefore, part of cause of action is
arising within jurisdiction of police station Singrauli. Offences under Section
498-A is continuing offence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
Court at Singrauli does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence
alleged against petitioner. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner
has relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate bench of this Court in the
case of Vikas Modi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C.No.28967/2023 ,
wherein Court has quashed the FIR on the ground that material facts were
suppressed, litigant is playing fraud upon the Court and complaint has been
filed as a counterblast. Reliance is also placed in order passed in the case of
Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in
Cr.R.No.521/2021.
8. Considering the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this
5 CRR-2385-2024
Court and also taking into account the factual matrix in the case, it is found
that part of cause of action arose in Singrauli as respondent no.2 is residing
in Singrauli and consequences of harassment and cruelty and demand of
dowry done in State of Uttar Pradesh, is suffered by respondent No.2 living
in Singrauli. Section 498-A of IPC is continuing offence. Petitioner refused
to accept respondent no.2 in his house. In these circumstances, there was
cause of action to file a complaint in Singrauli. Court has framed charges on
the basis of material available in the charge-sheet. Revisional jurisdiction of
Court under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C (438 of BNSS, 2023)
cannot be said to be at par with jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. High Court exercise original or supervisory jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C as in writ petitions under Article 226/227 of
Constitution of India. Court may scrutinize the entire material, which is
produced before it while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
However, in revision Court is exercising its jurisdiction to test legality and
propriety of an order passed by trial Court. Court has to restrict itself to the
records of the case, which was before the trial Court. Order of trial Court
cannot be tested on basis of documents which were not before it. In these
circumstances, petition under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be
considered by this Court while deciding challenge to framing of charges in
revision petition.
9. In these circumstances, petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
6 CRR-2385-2024
nd
