MOHD. IRFAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-13
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on March 04,2013

Mohd. Irfan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By way of this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants/petitioners Mohd. Irfan, Mohd. Suleman, Smt. Razia, Zaheer Alam, Ms. Shakila and Ms. Shazia Bano seek to quash the criminal complaint case No. 07 of 2009 and summoning order dated 25.02.2009 in Smt. Seema vs. Mohd. Irfan and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Ranikhet, District Almora, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ranikhet, District Almora. A further prayer has been made to quash the proceedings against the applicants/petitioners in the said case. Upon the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a first information report against the applicants Mohd. Irfan, Mohd. Suleman, Smt. Razia, Zaheer Alam, Ms. Shakila and Ms. Shazia Bano was lodged in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in PS Ranikhet, District Almora. Investigation began on the basis of the said first information report. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused-applicants was submitted before the court concerned, whereupon learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet took cognizance on 13.01.2009. Applicants have challenged the same by way of the instant application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 2 (wife of applicant No. 1) left her matrimonial home on 05.01.2005 and started living with her parents at Ranikhet. She never came back to her matrimonial home. The marriage of the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 26.04.2004. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent No. 2 after a lapse of three years and 9 months. [Sections 472 and 473 Cr.P.C. take care of the same] Victim has failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the application. Learned counsel for the applicants further pointed out that applicant No. 3 is the sister of applicant No. 1 and is married to applicant No. 4 and stays at her matrimonial home and not with her parents. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 2 on 02.09.2008. Applicant No. 1 granted divorce to respondent No. 2 according to Muslim Law, which was not accepted by the said respondent. Application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is counter blast to the divorce given by the applicant No. 1.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that major part of the incident alleged against the applicants took place in Delhi, no incident took place in Ranikhet, and therefore, the Court at Ranikhet has no jurisdiction to try the case. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Court at Ranikhet has no jurisdiction to try the case is totally unfounded in view of Section 178 of Cr.P.C., which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 178. 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 than 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.