- (1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5 of 2012 (State Vs. Apurva Shukla and ors.) under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code(for Short 'IPC') and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act') pending before the Court of ACJM-III, Unnao against the petitioners were sought to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by Unnao court.
(2.) THE brief facts for deciding the controversy are that on 28.05.2010 an FIR has been lodged by one Manoj Kumar Mishra O.P. No.2. against Apurva Shukla, and his father, Anil Shukla, mother Smt. Kamla Shukla, the wife of his elder brother Neelam Shukla, the uncle Ajay Shukla, and aunt Sunita Shukla under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P.Act with the allegations that marriage of Shivani, the daughter of O.P.No.2, was taken place with Apurva Shukla on 24.04.2008 at Kanpur in accordance with Hindu rites. Just after the marriage the accused person (arrayed in the FIR) startted demanding of a good car from Shivani's parents and started taunting and scolding her for bringing less dowry. She was subject to cruelty and harassment for the same. She was also beaten in her in-laws house at Kanpur. Shivani made a complaint of it to her parents but she was assured by the parents that very soon every thing will be all right. The parents of Shivani also tried to reconcile the matter with the in-laws of Shivani but they did not mend and continue to harass Shivani. On 26th January, 2010 in between 8 to 9 p.m. accused persons extended threat to life and abused Shivani. At the same time she was expelled from the matrimonial house at Kanpur after taking her ornaments and entire stridhan and put her belongings in a box and kept it the same by the accused in their custody. At the time of expulsion they told Shivani, if she comes back without car, she will not be allowed to enter into house and will be done to death by putting her on fire. Shivani anyhow reached to parental house at Unnao and told the entire story to the parents. This FIR was lodged in police station Kotwali, district Unnao. The investigation was started at Unnao. The Investigating Officer was of the opinion that the matter relates to district Kanpur, hence the same may be transferred to Kanpur and submitted a report to Superintendent of Police, Unnao (for short 'S.P') on 12.06.2010. While recording the first information report, Crime No. 'Nil' was mentioned for the aforesaid reason. However, S.P., Unnao directed the Investigating Officer to ask for the opinion of the victim, as to whether she wants investigation from Unnao or from Kanpur? In pursuance thereof S.I., Jagmohan Sharma, P.S.-Kotwali Unnao recorded the statement of victim to know whether she wants investigation at Unnao? She expressed her willingness to conduct the investigation by Unnao Police and thereafter Case Crime No.4807 of 2010 was allotted to the offence disclosed in the FIR by making entry in the GD on 01.08.2010. The investigation was carried out and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against accused persons. The Court of ACJM, Unnao proceeded with the trial after taking cognizance. Accused person during pendency of proceeding before Unnao court moved an application on 12.08.2011 (125-C) challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that entire cause of action arose at Kidwai-Nagar, Kanpur, hence court at Unnao has no territorial jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.05.2012 (Anneuxre-1 to this petition) held that jurisdiction of the court would be determined on the basis of permanent residence of husband, or where husband and wife reside together. However, the court finds that the wife is permanent resident of Unnao so court at Unnao has territorial jurisdiction and rejected the application.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioners filed criminal revision bearing No. 66 of 2012 before the court of sessions. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-2 to writ Petition) in view of judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar, 2011(2) ACR 1611 SC, and Dipali Joshi Vs State of U.P. And ors, 2009 (1) JIC 600 (All) and also keeping in view the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C after observing that the offence under Section 498A IPC is continuing offence. Therefore, the trial of such offence may be conduced where the act of cruelty was done or where the consequence of that act ensues and constitutes an offence. The Revisional Court further observed that from the allegations made against accused it is clear that on account of torture and cruelty cause to Shivani, she left her in-laws house at Kanpur and came to Unnao, therefore, court at Unnao has jurisdiction to try the case.;