SURESHCHANDRA VADILAL SHAH Vs. SHANTILAL SHANKERLAL
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SURESHCHANDRA VADILAL SHAH
Referred Judgements :-
EMPEROR V. IMANKHAN RASULKHAN
SAIN V. EMPEROR
Click here to view full judgement.
A.R.BAKSHI, N.G.SHELAT -
(1.)This application is directed against an order passed on 31 by Mr. R. N. Desai Judicial Magistrate First Class Palanpur in Criminal Case No. 613 of 1965 whereby the applicant-accused came to be committed under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions at Palanpur in respect of the charges leveled against him under secs. 366 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The opponent No. 1 was married with one Jayaben about 8 or 9 years ago and they have four children. The accused-applicant was living in the same mohalla in Palanpur where they were living and it appears that the accused developed some intimacy with Jayaben. He used to visit her house even during the absence of her husband inspite of his being asked not to visit his house. On the evening of 29-7-65 when he returned home from his shop he did not find his wife and on inquiry he learnt about the opponent No. 1 having taken her away towards Udaipur side by giving her false promises of bringing happiness by marrying with her etc. On those allegations he filed a criminal complaint against the accused-applicant for offences under secs. 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Palanpur. The evidence led by the complainant in the case disclosed prima facie about the accused having abducted her by deceitful means for the purpose of having sexual intercourse and having committed adultery with her without his consent or connivance so as to be liable for offences under secs. 366 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offence under sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions at Palanpur he committed him to that Court under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is against that order of commitment that the accused has preferred this application in this Court.
(3.)Of the various contentions raised in the application the one which was urged by Mr. Sheth the learned advocate for the applicant was that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to frame a charge for an offence of adultery punishable under sec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code and then again to commit the accused to stand his trial in the Court of Sessions along with other two charges in absence of any valid complaint required to be made to the Magistrate by the complainant under sec. 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him the complaint before the learned Magistrate much though it discloses sec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code under which the accused was sought to be prosecuted nowhere sets out any facts which constitute an offence of adultery contemplated under rec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The other point raised was that since adulterous intercourse with Jayaben was said to have taken place either at Udaipur or at Bombay and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Magistrate it had no jurisdiction to try or commit the accused for that offence to the Court of Sessions at Palanpur as the offence of adultery was independent and again complete by itself and consequently it was said that the order of commitment of the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial in respect of that offence would be bad in law and is liable to be quashed under sec. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now as provided in sec. 215 a commitment once made under sec. 213 by a competent Magistrate......... can be quashed by the High Court only and only on a point of law. It would be therefore necessary to consider the question as to whether the commitment of the accused to stand his trial in the Court of Sessions in respect of an offence under sec. 497 is not valid so as to have the same quashed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.