VIJAY DHANUKA ETC. Vs. NAJIMA MAMTAJ ETC.
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 27,2014
Vijay Dhanuka Etc.
Appellant
VERSUS
Najima Mamtaj Etc.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
E K JALEEL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-164] [REFERRED TO]ABHIJIT PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY VS. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
PRATEEK JASWANT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
MADHVI SINGH VS. G.K HADA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-141] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
B.K.D. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SUPER CLASS CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR KHURANA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
ANJANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-100] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN DAHIYA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-528] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA PAUL CHOUDHURY VS. ARNAB SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2020-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT LTD VS. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD AND ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2018-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ BUILDHOME PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. KHOZIM YUSUF NAGARWALA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
NAVPREET KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
ODI JERANG VS. NABAJYOTI BARUAH [LAWS(SC)-2023-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR DHIRENDRA VIKRAMENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(PAT)-2017-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SRI RENGAS AVITTA GARMENTS AND OTHERS VS. R. INDIRA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-964] [REFERRED TO]
NAKKHEERAN PUBLICATIONS VS. C.K.DHANDAPANI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-219] [REFERRED TO]
BIKAS DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM DINESH RADIA VS. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-232] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA KAMAL YADAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-235] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE BIYANI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SUDAM SAKHARE VS. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE III LKO. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
KARMRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-183] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL PATHAK VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
UTPAL CHOWDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2019-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYAJOT SINGH JENDU VS. MANIKARAN ANALYTICS LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2022-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
SHAUKAT KHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
K. SAMBA MURTHY AND TWO OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD, AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTHAMAN JAMBUKESAN VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-271] [REFERRED]
JAI HANUMAN RICE AND GENERAL MILLS VS. SUMITA JAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2024-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. BIKRAM SINGH MAJITHIA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
K S JOSEPH VS. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD [LAWS(SC)-2016-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
C.M.N. SHASTRY VS. STATE BY HONNAVARA POLICE STATION [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. MADHURI SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD VS. ANCHOR HEALTH AND BEAUTY CARE PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-290] [REFERRED TO]
SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARANATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
RITHESH BAWRI VS. DALMIA BHARATH (LTD) [LAWS(MAD)-2021-4-192] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL TODI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VAZHACKAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-109] [REFERRED TO]
K. NAGA SATYANARAYAN VERMA VS. JEERI SUDHAKAR REDDY [LAWS(CAL)-2023-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK AGARWAL VS. RAJA ACHARJI [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
BABBAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-407] [REFERRED TO]
MAHBOOB & ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
IN MATTER OF MADHVI SINGH VS. G.K.HADA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. VS. IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
RUHI NAAZ VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
NANKU VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-164] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH DHARMCHAND CHORDIYA (JAIN) VS. NEETA SACHIN CHANDAK [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-149] [REFERRED TO]
RAJUL KETAN RAJ VS. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-139] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. S. R. RANA [LAWS(HPH)-2021-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH SISODIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOURAV PRADHAN VS. G M S A PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-234] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-428] [REFERRED TO]
GULJARI LAL VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK [LAWS(P&H)-2022-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO CHINCHANASUR VS. ANJANA A. SHANTHAVEER [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SERDIA PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL BAHLCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF M/S JASPER INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
CONFIDENT PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV RANJAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
R.RADHA VS. MADHAN RAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2024-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
DIAMOND SODHI VS. MUKAL ARORA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-353] [REFERRED TO]
A.S. PATEL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL GANDHI VS. PURNESH ISHWERBHAI MODI [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
MY STORE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2019-1-134] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER PAL SINGH VS. RIMA GULSHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR VS. K.KOTESWAR RAO [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR DHOOT VS. DEO KUMAR SARAF AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. BINU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
MINTU MALLICK VS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
LUN KARAN SUREKA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE KHETAWAT VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-6-115] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI THAROOR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN PRASAD SEN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-132] [REFERRED]
AMIT AGARWAL VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN N. TATA AND ORS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-211] [REFERRED TO]
BLACKBURN METALS VS. M/S. ZEP ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
SIMAIYYA HARIRAMANI VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(CHH)-2020-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP KUNDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-324] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCO RAIL ENGINEER LTD. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASST DRUGS CONTROLLER [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-120] [REFERRED TO]
RANJITHA VS. K. LENIN [LAWS(KAR)-2022-11-151] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL VTTAL, BHARTI AIRTEL LTD VS. KAMATCI SHANKAR ARUMUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2024-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
ZEE LABORATORIES VS. DRUG INSPECTOR [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD CHANDRA SAHOO VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. INDUS TOWER LIMITED VS. NARAYAN CHANDRA RAJAK [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD JAJOO VS. PUNAM JAJOO [LAWS(CAL)-2018-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT LTD VS. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK GABA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR ABBOT VS. EKTA ABBOT [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-260] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR BANKA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
N. BHARATH REDDY VS. C. SUNIL KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA HOSDRUG SUNDAR KAMATH VS. K.G. INIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-139] [REFERRED TO]
VAYAM GMV INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION PVT LTD VS. INTERLACE INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV POOJAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-276] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH HIRANI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRATAPSINH @ JASMAT RAMESHWARSINGH PAWAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-281] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED MOHAMMED OMAIR SAYED IBRAHIM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-192] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHA TERON VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-169] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA PAUL CHOUDHURY VS. ARNAB SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2020-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
T.P. NANDAKUMAR VS. NANDAKUMAR NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-372] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case for commission of
offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as "the IPC". Respondent No. 1 filed a
complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur,
Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking cognizance of the
same, transferred the complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.
(2.)According to the allegation in the complaint petition, accused no.1 Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas other accused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad. The complainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased shares from Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker, accused No. 1. According to the complaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares between the complainant and the accused persons and to settle the on-going dispute, the accused persons offered a proposal to the complainant who consented to it and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visited at her residence at Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion with the complainant and her husband. According to the allegation, the discussion did not yield any result and the accused persons started shouting at them. Some of the accused persons, according to the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag and put the same over the heads of the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that they assaulted the complainant and her husband with fists and slaps and also abused them and coerced the complainant to sign some papers and snatched away the suitcase containing some papers. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 1st of October, 2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal. On receipt of the record, the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to 31st of October, 2011. On the said date, the complainant and her witnesses were present. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined. Order dated 31st of October, 2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e. 15th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons for offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is relevant here to state that in the complaint, the residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
(3.)Petitioners challenged the order issuing process in four separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the accused persons being residents of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was also contended that only after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was required to come to the conclusion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused persons. Said submission did not find favour with the High Court and by common order dated 19th of February, 2013, it rejected all the applications. It is against this common order that the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions.
(2.)According to the allegation in the complaint petition, accused no.1 Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas other accused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad. The complainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased shares from Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker, accused No. 1. According to the complaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares between the complainant and the accused persons and to settle the on-going dispute, the accused persons offered a proposal to the complainant who consented to it and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visited at her residence at Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion with the complainant and her husband. According to the allegation, the discussion did not yield any result and the accused persons started shouting at them. Some of the accused persons, according to the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag and put the same over the heads of the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that they assaulted the complainant and her husband with fists and slaps and also abused them and coerced the complainant to sign some papers and snatched away the suitcase containing some papers. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 1st of October, 2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal. On receipt of the record, the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to 31st of October, 2011. On the said date, the complainant and her witnesses were present. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined. Order dated 31st of October, 2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e. 15th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons for offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is relevant here to state that in the complaint, the residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
(3.)Petitioners challenged the order issuing process in four separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the accused persons being residents of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was also contended that only after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was required to come to the conclusion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused persons. Said submission did not find favour with the High Court and by common order dated 19th of February, 2013, it rejected all the applications. It is against this common order that the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.