OM PRAKASH-VII,J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 8.4.2019 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.6683 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506, 315, 511 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh and further to keep in abeyance the effect and operation of the impugned orders and proceedings of the aforesaid case.
(2.) Heard S/Shri Anil Tiwari and Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that cognizance taken in the matter on the charge sheet against the applicant is illegal and without application of judicial mind. Court situated at Azamgarh had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. Opposite party no.2 never resided at Azamgarh. Though native village of her parents is within territorial jurisdiction of district Azamgarh yet marriage between the parties was took place at Mumbai. She was also residing at her in-laws house situated at Mumbai. Referring to F.I.R. it is submitted that all the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Mumbai. F.I.R. was lodged in the matter at Azamgarh on the basis of false facts. Opposite party no.2 has made contrary statements in different proceedings initiated by her against the applicant. Referring to transfer petition filed before Apex Court, Petition before Mumbai High Court and the proceeding started under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as well as proceeding under Section CrPC, it was also submitted that in some documents / affidavits she has disclosed that after her desertion from in-laws house she came at the residence of her parents situated at Mumbai at Worli but in some documents she has disclosed that she came at her Maika at Azamgarh. Contrary plea has also been taken in the aforesaid petitions / proceedings regarding place of birth of child. Referring to statements of victim, mother, father, brother, pandit, who got performed the marriage, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that all statements reveal that opposite party no.2 never took shelter after desertion from her in-laws house at her native village at Azamgrah. She has drawn salary from a company / firm situated at Mumbai where she was working and was residing with her parents. She has also filed Income Tax Return at Mumbai. It appears improbable and unbelievable that she was residing at Azamgarh but income tax return was filed at Mumbai. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant also referred to passport, voter identity card and other documents annexed with the application and supplementary affidavit and submitted that Court concerned without taking into account the settled legal position straightway took cognizance in the matter. It is lastly submitted that all documents annexed with the application and supplementary affidavit are impeccable and have not been controverted by the opposite party no.2, therefore, they can be relied upon to decide the prayer made in the application, though, same were not part of the case diary. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws : (i). Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 5 SCC 384. (ii). Bhagwan Dass and another vs. Kamal Abrol and others, (2005) 11 SCC 66. (iii). Sharad Kumar Pandey vs. Mamta Pandey, 2010 (118) DRJ 625. (iv). Prashant and another vs. Sau Madhuri and others, Criminal Revision Application No. 146 of 2017, decided on 6.4.2018 by Nagpur Bench, Mumbai High Court. (v). State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568. (vi). Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others, 2008 (14) SCC 1. (vii). Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330. (viii). Amarendu Jyoti and others vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2014 (12) SCC 362. (ix). Manish Ratan and others vs. State of M.P. and another, 2007 (1) SCC 262. (x). Ramesh and others vs. State of T.N., 2005(3) SCC 507. (xi). Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 (8) SC 100. ;