Smt. Savitri and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Saran, J.—Since the aforementioned two writ petitions arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of together by this common order.

By means of Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2006, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 24.6.2005 and 28.2.2006, passed by Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Complaint No. 1151 of 2005 and further holding that the Courts at Bhadohi (Sant Ravi Dass Nagar) have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of Respondent No. 3.

By means of Writ Petition No. 6903 of 2006, the Petitioners have prayed for the same relief viz. for quashing the order dated 24.6.2005 and 19.5.2006, passed by C.J.M. in the said Criminal Complaint No. (711/2005) 1151 of 2005 and further holding that the Courts at Bhadohi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of Respondent No. 3.

Before proceeding further, it is noteworthy that the Petitioner Anirudh Kumar Mishra has also filed a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8694 of 2009 challenging the orders dated 6.3.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), Bhadohi, Gyanpur and the order dated 25.8.2008, passed by 2nd Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bhadohi (Court No. 12), passed in Case No. 535/702/2005, Smt. Sadhana v. Anirudh Kumar, awarding maintenance @ Rs. 3,500 per month u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of order which is still pending without any interim order.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

By the impugned order dated 24.6.2005, it was observed that the opposite party No. 3 was married to Petitioner Anirudh Kumar Mishra on 1.6.2003 at Mauza Bara Gaon, P.S. Gopiganj, district Bhadohi, hence the Court had the jurisdiction to try the case against all the accused persons-Petitioners for harassment for dowry demands and has accordingly registered the complaint of the complainant-opposite party No. 3.

After passing the order dated 24.6.2005, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing an application, u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure being Crl. Misc. Application No. 1500 of 2006. this Court by order dated 7.2.2006 has dismissed the said application so far as the husband Anirudh Kumar Mishra, father-in-law Ram Narain Mishra and mother-in-law Smt. Savitri Devi are concerned and has stayed the proceedings in so far as it relates to the Petitioners, Arun Kumar Mishra, Smt. Sushma and Smt. Archana Pandey, the "jeth", "jethani" and "nanad".

Thereafter, the said order of this Court dated 7.2.2006 was challenged before the Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 928 of 2006 by the Petitioners, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 6.3.2006. When the order, passed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 928 of 2006 was produced before this Court, Hon''ble Vinod Prasad, J., who was hearing the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1500 of 2006, has dismissed the application and the stay order granted earlier on 7.2.2006 was vacated vide his order dated 4.4.2006 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without unnecessary delay.

On 28.2.2006/19.5.2006, the learned Magistrate by initiating proceedings u/s 82/83, Code of Criminal Procedure has also issued non-bailable warrants against the Petitioners Arun Kumar, Smt. Sushma Devi and Smt. Archana Devi.

Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2006 was filed by mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of opposite party No. 3, wherein the same issue about lack of jurisdiction of the Bhadohi Court was raised. Although the facts about dismissal of the petition by the Apex Court has been mentioned in para 30 of the petition, but it does not appear that this fact was highlighted before the Court at the time of arguments and as a result of which, the trial with regard to aforementioned Petitioners was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 10.3.2006. It is also not clarified any where in the said petition that the Petitioners did not raise this point about lack of jurisdiction of the Bhadohi Court before the Apex Court.

learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that only because the Petitioner Anirudh Kumar Mishra married with opposite party No. 3 in Gopiganj, district Bhadohi (subsequently Sant Ravidass Nagar), the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, whereas in the present case, the allegations of torture mentioned in the complaint and the statement of the complainant Smt. Sadhana u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure show that the place where Smt. Sadhana was tortured was in her sasural, which was in Nagpur (Maharashtra). It was further submitted that in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, it has been held that the place of trial should be the place, where the cause of action arises.

Elaborating his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that no part of the cause of action arose in Bhadohi, hence the criminal Court in Bhadohi have no jurisdiction in the matter. It was further argued that there is no allegation of demand of dowry, hence Section 498A, I.P.C. would not be disclosed.

A perusal of the statement of the complainant-opposite party No. 3 recorded u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure however, shows that after keeping all the jewellery and clothes of the complainant on the pretext of taking her to her matrimonial home, the accused persons left her at the side of her father''s village. Even in Y. Abraham Ajit''s case (supra), it is mentioned that if part of the cause of action arises in another district, the trial could take place in that district as well in view of Section 178(d), Code of Criminal Procedure.

In Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee 1997 (6) SCC 30 , referred to in Y. Abraham Ajit (supra), it has been held that if the husband assaulted the complainant, even though dowry demand have been made in the matrimonial home of the victim but the husband also went to the maternal home and assaulted her there, then it was held that in view of Section 178(c), the offence could be said to have been committed in both the districts. There is another case of State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another, where the complainant Smt. Ranjana Koshal had been married to Suresh Kaushal at Jabalpur but most of the actions alleged against the accused, took place at Indore and subsequently she was taken to Jabalpur where she has miscarried, it was observed that u/s 179, Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial can take place at the place where the offence is done or where its consequences ensue. The finding of the High Court that the Jabalpur Court had no jurisdiction as the offence had took place at Indore was set aside by the Apex Court, which shows that both the Courts at Jabalpur and Indore hadjurisdiction in the matter.

My attention has also been drawn by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the marriage had already been dissolved on 1.12.2005 by mutual consent, hence no incident could have taken place as alleged.

In my view, a clever device has been adopted by the Petitioners for challenging the orders dated 24.6.2005 and 28.2.2006/ 19.5.2006, which were only consequences of earlier orders for summoning the accused.

Reliance was also placed on Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, but the facts of said case are distinguishable from the present case.

Merely because there was a divorce by mutual consent, I find no good ground for allowing the aforesaid petitions and quashing the orders challenged therein as after the divorce etc also, Smt. Sadhana, the opposite party No. 3 was taken to her residence and kept out side the village and then tortured there as well.

In view of the above, both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that if the Petitioners appear before the Court concerned and apply for bail, within six weeks from today, the Magistrate shall fix a date within 10 days thereafter for the appearance of the Petitioners before him and in the meantime obtain instructions and then dispose of the prayer for bail in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court inAmrawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 : 2004 (3) ACR 2888, affirmed by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (2) Crime 4 : 2009 (2) ACR 2063 (SC).

The connected Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8694 of 2009 dealing with the maintenance matter between the parties is being released. Let it be listed before the appropriate Bench.