VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.882 of 2013 as well as the impugned order dated 20.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 in Criminal Revision No.230 of 2014 and the impugned order dated 11.06.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar summoning the petitioner under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4of D.P. Act.
(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding this writ petition are that opposite party no.2 Smt. Reeta Devi filed a complaint against the petitioner and Jhakhura Devi, who is the wife of his elder brother, with the allegations that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and Jhakhura Devi on account of non fulfilment of dowry. It has also been alleged by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Village Janesari Bujurg, District Ambedkar Nagar. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and with the wedlock of the said marriage one son and a daughter have born. In September, 2002, the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Central School. Thereafter, the petitioner and the wife of his elder brother geared up the aforesaid demand of dowry and started harassing her mentally and used to assault her physically. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi Central School. In Delhi, the petitioner started residing at the house of his elder brother. When the father and brother of the opposite party no.2 put lot of pressure upon the petitioner, the petitioner taken away her wife the opposite party no.2 with him but she was kept alone in a room situated at Ghaziabad and her husband started residing with his elder brother at Kirtinagar. On the protest raised by the opposite party no.2, the petitioner taken away her wife to the house of his elder brother where she saw her husband and Jhakhuri Devi in objectionable position. In the meantime, the elder brother of the petitioner died in the year 2011. After the death of his elder brother, the petitioner and Jhakhuri Devi started living openly at Kirtinagar and when the opposite party no.2 raised objection, she was beaten badly and ousted from the house. Thereafter, she came to her matrimonial house at Village Janesari Bujurg, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar along with her children and she start residing there. On 04.09.2011 at about 10:00 A.M., petitioner came to Village Janesari Bujurg and abused and beaten her and also tried to set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. When she raised alarm, several persons came and thereafter she managed to save her life. Thereafter, the petitioner ousted her from the house and thereafter, she went to her parental home and informed about the incident to her parents. She along with her father went to the Police Station Rajesultanpur to lodge the FIR but when no action has been taken by the police of Police Station Rajesultanpur, she informed about the incident to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar. When no action has been taken by the police authorities, this complaint has been filed by her. After recording her statements under Section 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2014 under Sections 498 -A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4of D.P. Act. Against the order of summoning, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.230 of 2014, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 20.10.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid impugned orders on the following grounds: (i) that; the court of Ambedkar Nagar has no jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Delhi where the husband is admittedly residing and working. (ii) that; the impugned order of summoning is bad for non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 202, Cr.P.C. which relates to an accused who resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Sudhir Chandra and another Vs. The State of U.P. and another decided on 08.10.2013 in Criminal Misc. Case (under Section 482, Cr.P.C.) No.4808 of 2013 and would submit that this Court in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, 2013 2 SCC 488 held that where the accused persons are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, learned Magistrate must invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Section 202, Cr.P.C. by postponing the process against the accused and to initiate inquiry. In this case, no such inquiry has been conducted. Hence, the order of summoning issued against the petitioner is not sustainable and consequently, the order of revisional court is also liable to be quashed.;