Mohammad Noor and others vs Nikhat Pharjana

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

petitioners/accused has directed this petition u/s 483, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Trial No. 1102/98 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal.

petitioner No. 1 got married with respondent on dated 4-4-1996 at Bhopal and thereafter they lived in the parental home of petitioners at Islampura Padati, Railway Station; Ghosi Maunat Bhanjan, PS Ghosi District Mau (U.P.). It is alleged in the complaint filed by respondent that at the time of marriage the ornaments, other articles and household goods were given by parents and relatives of the complainant. The same were taken by petitioners as Stridhan Sampatti of the complainant. It is also alleged that from the very inception of the marriage petitioners have been demanding additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of such demand she was mal-treated. As per other averments of the complaint all these incidents regarding cruelty had taken place at the matrimonial home, in the aforesaid village of Uttar Pradesh not at Bhopal (MP). The aforesaid complaint was filed by non-applicant for taking over the cognizance under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal by which the cognizance was taken against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections.

The contents of the petitioners are that the incident regarding cruelty and breach of trust both or any of it had not taken place at Bhopal as per complaint itself then the Bhopal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for taking cognizance against the petitioners. In view of alleged allegation the Court of Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to entertain such complaint subject to availability of ingredients of alleged offences.

Counsel for petitioners submitted that mere perusing the entire complaint it reveals that the alleged incident regarding cruelty had taken place only at matrimonial home. The residence of the petitioners at their village in Uttar Pradesh and not at Bhopal. The marriage ceremony was performed at Bhopal where as alleged articles and the other things had been entrusted to petitioners and the same were taken to matrimonial home the village of petitioners. The demand for returning the same was made at Uttar Pradesh, as per averments of the complaint. Thus by virtue of Section 177 Code of Criminal Procedure the Bhopal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in any manner he supported his submission by the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Nahar Ram and another of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 L.T. (SC) 118 and in the case of Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, and prayed for quashment of the trial.

While, other hand, Shri S. Jaisani the counsel for the respondent complainant has submitted that although all articles were taken to Uttar Pradesh but the same were entrusted and handed over to petitioners at Bhopal. The ingredients of breach of trust and place of the offence specifically would be proved at the stage of trial but at the initial stage. For the purpose of taking over the cognizance in the matter the Bhopal Court has jurisdiction because the aforesaid goods, articles and valuables were entrusted or handed over to the petitioners at Bhopal. In support of his submission he referred Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also cited the decided case of this Court in the matter of Gopal Rao v. Baldeo, 1960 MPLJ 180 and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard the Learned Counsels for the parties on perusing the annexures as available on record, it appears from the complaint that alleged articles were entrusted and handed over on solemnization of marriage at Bhopal and same had been taken to Uttar Pradesh at the matrimonial house of the respondent where the alleged offence of cruelty was also committed with the respondent.

The allegations regarding cruelty as mentioned in the complaint took place at matrimonial home in Uttar Pradesh then certainly in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court "Surjit Singh" (supra) the Bhopal Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance for the offence of cruelty i.e. 498A Indian Penal Code. But so far offence of Section 406, Indian Penal Code the breach of trust is concerned the Bhopal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint if other circumstances are prima facie proved by admissible evidence because the Court of either place Bhopal or Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction as per provision of Section 181(4) Code of Criminal Procedure which says as under:

Place of trial in case of certain offences.- (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or trial by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person." The case of the Apex Court as cited by petitioner Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, in such matter the Section 181(4) Code of Criminal Procedure was not considered and therefore on this point this reported case is distinguishable. While the Bhopal Court is having the jurisdiction as per decided case of this Court in the matter of Gopal Rao v. Baldeo reported in 1960 MPLJ 180 in which it was held as under:

It is not essential under Sub-section (2) of Section 181, Code of Criminal Procedure that at the time property is said to have been received or retained by the accused person, he must have a dishonest intention to misappropriate it or to commit criminal breach of trust in respect thereof. It is enough if the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained by the accused at a particular place to give jur