VICKY KUMAR Vs. BABITA
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-27
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 24,2013

Vicky Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
BABITA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) THE applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 28 of 2009, Babita Devi v. Vicky Kumar and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, under Sections 120 -B, 325, 498 -A, 452, 504, 506 of IPC as well as summoning order dated 16.04.2009.
(2.) RESPONDENT filed a criminal complaint case against the accused -applicants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The statements of Rati Ram and Mahendra were recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. After perusing the material on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, vide order dated 16.04.2009, summoned the accused -applicants Vicky Kumar and Ajay for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 325, 498 -A, 452, 504, 506 of IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also summoned accused -applicants Hari Om and Dinesh under Sections 498 -A, 120 -B, 452, 504, 506, 325/109 IPC. Accused -applicant Smt. Savitri was summoned under Sections 498 -A, 120 -B, 325 of IPC, accused -applicant Smt. Swati under Sections 498 -A and 120 -B of IPC and accused -applicant Smt. Babli under Sections 498 -A, 120 -B, 325/109 of IPC. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused -applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants contended, among other things, that the criminal complaint case filed by the respondent against the applicants was counterblast to the complaint filed by the applicant No. 1 against the father and brother of the respondent. Learned counsel also contended that the incident allegedly took place within the jurisdiction of police station Nagina, District Bijnor (U.P.) and the court at Rudraprayag has no jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the court at Rudraprayag has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in view of Sections 178, 179 and 180 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that, on the basis of statements brought on record, a prima facie case was made out against the applicants for the offences for which they were summoned by the trial court.
(3.) SECTION 177 of Cr.P.C. deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. says that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local places. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. prescribes that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. The marriage of respondent was solemnized with applicant No. 1 at Nagina, Bijnor. The alleged harassment, cruelty, assault, abuse, threatening took place at Nagina. The respondent had no option but to leave her matrimonial home in the wake of such harassment and to take shelter at her parental home at Rudraprayag. The offence punishable under Section 498 -A of IPC is a continuing offence. It cannot, therefore, be said that the court at Rudraprayag has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.;


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