Gudiya @ Pratima Singh vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of Tejdhari Singh, complainant, father of Seema Devi as Seema Devi died subsequent to the incident.

This application has been filed for quashing the chargesheet No. 83 of 2006 dated 23.11.2006 in case crime No. 543 of 2006, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Machhlishahr, District Jaunpur and also criminal proceeding in pursuance of the aforesaid chargesheet in criminal case No. 6799 of 2006 State v. Dilip Kumar Singh and others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Jaunpur.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged.

Initially, allegations under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C. were that coaccused Dilip Kumar Singh was married with Seema Devi in 2001. Substantial amount of dowry was given at the time of marriage and sufficient expenses were incurred by the father of Seema Devi, but Dilip Singh and his father Harish Chandra at the time of ''Khichri festival'' demanded a coloured T.V., golden chain, fridge and Motor Cycle and they were not willing to consume the "Khichri" for non fulfilment of the dowry demands. When Smt. Seema (deceased) went to her Sasural then again the applicants and coaccused reiterated the demand for a Coloured T.V., Chain, Fridge and Car. Again, some demands were made when she came to her parental home after 8 days. When Seema went to her Sasural on 22.2.2002, she was again tortured by the applicants. When Dilip Singh got a job in the Wireless Department, he now demanded a car instead of a motor cycle which he was demanding earlier. It is said that in case of nonfulfilment of the demand, the applicants and coaccused would get Dilip married elsewhere and Seema will be sent back to her home and they would not bring her back to her Sasural. On 19.8.2006 at about 11 p.m. the applicants Kusumwati and Gudia and their father abused Seema for not bringing the dowry items, then she replied that it will be better if she would be eliminated at one time instead of teasing her again and again. On her reply, all the accused persons beat her with dandas, kicks and fists even though Seema was pregnant by 3 or 4 months. Kusumwati and Gudia gave fists blow on her stomach so that she could abort. Thereafter her husband and fatherinlaw Harish Chandra took her forcibly from Kanpur to Lucknow and from Lucknow to Janpur and left her all alone at the City Station Jaunpur and also threatened her that if she could not meet out the dowry demands aforesaid, she would be murdered and Dilip would be married elsewhere. Then Seema rang up her parental house "maika" and ultimately she was taken there and on the next day she was medically examined. Subsequently, she aborted the child.

The principle argument raised by learned Counsel for the applicants is that the incident in this case relates to Kanpur Nagar and not Jaunpur and the summoning order dated by 8.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur on the chargesheet was without jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the injuries sustained by Smt. Seema. She sustained a lacerated wound on the right side of the scalp and also other injuries were found. Apparently, Seema even aborted her child. He has also drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee1. 1997(35)ACC108(SC). where a continuing offence is committed on several occasions, then a complaint under section 498 I.P.C. etc. could be filed in both the districts where she has married as well as her home place where the Magistrate has also jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In this case some incidents have taken place at Jaunpur as mentioned, viz the earlier demand for dowry when the applicants and ultimately raised the dowry demands at the time of "Bided" from her maternal home and thereafter when they left her at the Railway Station Jaunpur. All these are acts of cruelty. There is thus no illegality in the aforesaid order.

No ground for quashing the charge sheet is made out.

The application is rejected.

In view of the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks from today in the aforesaid case and apply for bail, their bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations have been made only for the purpose of disposal of this application and the Court below shall dispose of the bail application and trial of the case uninfluenced by the same. Application Rejected.