- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a dispute between a husband and wife. There is a long and lingering ill will and mistrust between the two, resulting in multifarious litigation of divorce nature. The case in hand arises out of proceedings (complaint No. 5180 of 2004) under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act instituted on the basis of complaint filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.
(2.) THE Magistrate summoned the accused-petitioners under Section 498-A I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,on a Revision No. (132 of 2005) the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1) was of the view that no offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. was made out and only an offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was made out. It is against this order dated 19-10-2004 of Sessions Judge, the petitioners have come up to this Court. I have heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. D. Yadav, Additional Government Advocate for the State.
(3.) THREE points have been argued by the Counsel for the petitioners which can be considered separately: (i) It was argued that since the wife has been divorced by the husband accused, subsequent to the order of summoning by the Magistrate, the charge under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act becomes inoperative. On what basis this argument is founded, was not elaborated by the Counsel for the petitioners. If an offence has already been committed, divorce will have no bearing thereon, and will not obliterate an offence, which has been committed. (ii) It was also pointed out, that since the Sessions Judge has exonerated the accused from the charge under Section 498-A I. P. C. , the charge under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, also collapses. This argument is without substance, because the two offences are separate and have separate ingredients, that is why the two charges are usually leveled together. If the argument of the learned Counsel is accepted, a charge of one of the two aforesaid offences, would become redundant, which cannot be the accepted position. (iii) The third argument was about jurisdiction, and it was contended, that the Court at Budaun, has no jurisdiction and the jurisdiction would lie in the Court at Etah because the demand of dowry is said to be made in husband's house in Kasganj, Etah. It has to be seen that in the complaint, it has been mentioned that there was a Panchayat about the husband and wife dispute at Budaun and during the course of Panchayat, the accused- petitioners reiterated their demand for dowry. The demand for dowry, according to the allegations of the complaint, was also, therefore, made at Budaun, which gives the Budaun Court jurisdiction for trial of the offence. The Counsel for the petitioners has referred in this connection to the case of Y. Abrham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. , 2004 (2) JIC 666 (SC) : 2004 Cri. LJ. 4180, whereon the facts of the case, it was held that since no demand of dowry was made at Chennai, the Court at Chennai had no jurisdiction and only the Nagarcoil Court will have jurisdiction, where the demand was made. This case law, will be, therefore, of no help to the petitioners.;