AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharam Veer, J.—In both the above petitions, common summoning order is assailed and the dispute is also the same, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
Both the criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed for quashing the order- dated 27.06.2006 passed by the J.M., Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 1151/2006 (in C482 petition No. 243/09) and in Criminal Case No. 193/09 (in C482 petition No. 193/09).
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Rajpal lodged an FIR with the averments that his daughter Sunita Sharma was married with petitioner-Rikesh Kumar Gaur on 1.5.2004 as per Hindu RITES and he spent money according to his status. An amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was demanded by the petitioners from the complainant before marriage, which was deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit. After some days, the petitioners again demanded Rs. 5.00 lacs from opening a Clinic and on refusal, the daughter of respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical cruelty. Even when the victim delivered a child, her husband Rikesh went away without informing anyone and on coming to know, the complainant arrived at the Nursing Home. On 25.5.2005 when the victim was taken at her house i.e. in-laws house, the petitioners again committed mental harassment of victim on which the complainant brought her at Kathgodam. During investigation, it also revealed that the petitioner-Rikesh had already been married with some Sushma/Rajni on 22.11.2002. With these averments, the FIR was lodged u/s 494/498A/323/504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 18.6.2005 at 10:10 PM at PS Kathgodam, Distt. Nainital. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners u/s 494/498A/323/504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the petitioners were summoned by the trial court to face trial vide order dated 27.6.2006, assailing which the petitioners have come up before this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR, it reveals that no part of alleged offence has been committed within the territory of Uttarakhand. It is further pointed out that the entire alleged incident relates to District Ghaziabad (State of Uttar Pradesh). Attention of this Court is drawn to Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., which provides as under:
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.
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.
Besides above, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134 and in the case of Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the fact that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, deserves to be allowed.
For the reasons as discussed above, both the petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. The impugned common summoning order of petitioners dated 27.6.2006, charge sheets of Crl. Case Nos. 1151/2006 and Crl. Case No. 193/2009, are quashed with the observation that the complainant (respondent No. 2) may make a complaint regarding his grievances, before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. Interim orders dated 4.8.2009 and 15.5.2009 are vacated.