Siddharth Kumar Mishra & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in Cr.R. No.14/2018; whereby the Revisional Court confirmed the order dated 10.10.2017 passed in R.C.T. No.9909453/2017 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, thereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed a charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 506-II of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that complainant Smt. Kalpna Mishra is a legally wedded wife of the applicant Siddharth Kumar Mishra and applicant No.2 is her father-in-law. Complainant filed a written complaint before the Station House Officer of Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal alleging that her marriage was fixed with Siddharth Kumar Mishra at Bhopal and before marriage applicants were demanding Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakh) as a dowry from her father but he was not in a position to give them Rs.15,00,000/-. Out of that, Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh) has been deposited in the common account of complainant and Siddharth Mishra. Marriage was solemnized on 10.06.2015, after marriage she went to her matrimonial house, where she was again harassed by the applicants on not fulfilling the demand of dowry. She again went back to her parental house and filed a complaint before the Police Counseling Center, where applicant Siddharth Kumar Mishra was agreed to take his wife with him but as both walked out of the Center, applicant specifically denied and threatened Kalpna Mishra (wife) that if she comes to matrimonial house without remaining dowry, he will kill her.

Kalpna Mishra lodged a written complaint. On the basis of which Crime No.116/2017 under Sections 498-A & 506-II of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is registered at Mahila Thana. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, registered as R.C.T. No.9909453/2017 and Judicial Magistrate First Class after hearing both the parties framed a charge under Section 468-A and 506-II of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants. Being aggrieved by that charge, applicant filed a criminal revision before the 12th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal. Applicant also raised a question of territorial jurisdiction before the revisional Court and contended that the place of incidence is a village Newspata, Police Station Beohari, District Shahdol. The case is wrongly investigated by the Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal, where the offence has not been committed and after investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Bhopal. That Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. The applicants prayed to quash the charge and discharge the applicants.

Revisional Court below considered the objection raised by the applicants and concluded that part of the demand made at Bhopal and part of the demand made at the matrimonial house. On that basis, both Police Stations are having jurisdiction to investigate over the matter and both Courts at Bhopal as well as at Beohari are having jurisdiction to try the case and dismissed the Revision vide order dated 01.08.2018.

That order dated 01.08.2018 is challenged before this Court on the ground that in the First Information Report complainant mentioned that she has been tortured in matrimonial house, Beohari not at Bhopal. Applicant No.1 wrote a letter dated 10.07.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal about the jurisdiction of investigation. But Superintendent of Police, Bhopal has not taken any action on that letter. The trial Court framed the charges of the offence under Sections 498-A & 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, without having any territorial jurisdiction for the trial of this case. On that ground, applicant prayed to quash the charges leveled against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Learned Govt. Advocate submits that Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal is having jurisdiction to investigate over the matter. Charge sheet has rightly been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal is having territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The petition is filed on the basis of wrong facts and prays for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the documents filed along with the petition. Kalpna Mishra, wife of the applicant No.1 Siddharth Kumar Mishra, submitted a written complaint before the Station House Officer of Mahila Thana, Jehangirabad, Bhopal mentioning the fact that she got married on 10.06.2015 at Bhopal. Thereafter, she went to matrimonial house and remained there till 07.08.2016, thereafter, she came back to her parental house situated at Bhopal. The facts mentioned in the FIR is that applicant No.1 demanded Rs.15,00,000/- in cash before the marriage and at the time of function of Tilak ceremony and after that he made a call to her father that if Rs.15,00,000/- is not deposited in the account of applicant No.2, he will not come to perform the marriage with Barat. Her father deposited Rs.5,00,000/-in the joint account of Kalpna Mishra and Siddharth Kumar Mishra. After marriage, she went to the matrimonial house. There she has been harassed on account of non-fulfilling the whole demand of Rs.15,00,000/-. She has been abused by the filthy languages. She was physically tortured by the applicant. When her father came at her matrimonial house to take her to Bhopal, he was also harassed for the demand of dowry. Then she came at Bhopal and lodged a report before the Police Counseling Center, where applicant No.2 compromised with the complainant and when both came out of the Police Station again applicant No.2 threatened her that if she comes without the remaining part of dowry, they will kill her at the matrimonial house. The applicant No.1 left her at Bhopal and went back to Beohari, thereafter, she submitted a report against the applicant. On the basis of that application, FIR has been lodged as Crime No.116/2017 registered against the applicants.

Perused the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Suresh Nandu, Vinay Chaturvedi, Smt. Kusum Chaturvedi, Shivkant Chaturvedi and Smt. Kalpna Mishra. This fact prima-facie emerges out that applicants are demanding Rs.15,00,000/- before the marriage on the eve of engagement ceremony and thereafter, they continued the demand of money. Rs.5,00,000/- have been deposited in the joint account of applicant No.1 and his wife but is spite of that the applicant demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. On account of that, dispute arose between the complainant and the applicants. They continued harassing the complainant on account of demand of dowry. There is a prima-facie ingredient of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC. The complainant specifically stated in the FIR as well as in the statement record under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that applicant No.1 threatened her to kill in the matrimonial house, if she comes to matrimonial house without remaining amount. After threat, she intimidated and did not go to her matrimonial house. There is a primafacie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the IPC.

Whether Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal is not having any territorial jurisdiction to try the case. When dispute arose between the applicant and her wife, she was living at Bhopal. Both the parties were counseled before the Police Counseling Center, situated at Mahila Thana, Bhopal where applicant No.1 was agreed to take her wife with him, but later on he threatened his wife that if she comes without bringing remaining part of demand of dowry, he will kill her in the matrimonial house and left her wife at Bhopal. Thereafter, she filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bhopal. There is sufficient oral evidence for the demand of dowry at Bhopal by the applicant No.1 at the time of engagement ceremony and before that, offence under Section 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence. There is a prima-facie ingredient that some demand was made at the place of Bhopal and some demand was made at the matrimonial house, Beohari. This Court is of the view that Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal is having jurisdiction to try the case. Objection raised by the counsel for the applicant is not sustainable.

On the basis of foregoing discussion and documents filed in the case diary which are the part of the chargesheet, there is a primafacie ingredients of the offences on which Court can proceed further and can frame the charge also. This Court does not find any error in framing of charge by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. This Revision petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.