Uttarakhand High Court
Keshav Saxena Alias Nitesh Gaurav And ... vs Smt. Manisha Saxena on 13 July, 2016
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 806 of 2016
(under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Keshav Saxena @ Nitesh Gaurav and another
..........Applicants
Versus
Smt. Manisha Sexena .........Respondent
Present : Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
On a complaint moved by the respondent on 02.09.2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, learned Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance and summoned the present applicants vide summoning order dated 01.02.2016. Aggrieved, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 Applicant no. 1 is the husband and applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent/complainant. The marriage of the complainant and applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Thereafter, there appears to be some matrimonial discord between the parties.
3. The case of the applicants is that the applicants reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, it was mandatory for the learned Magistrate to have enquired into the matter either by himself or through the police before issuing the summons and this mandatory procedure under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has not been followed.
4. Although, it is an admitted fact that the applicant reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and 2 the enquiry ought to have been done by the learned Magistrate under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory under the law, however, the fact of the matter is that this apparently has been done as it seems from the order dated 01.02.2016 that summons have been issued after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, once this has been done, nothing further needs to be done as far as "enquiry required from the Magistrate under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C." is concerned. There seems to be no abuse of process of the Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for in the matter. However, it is made clear that considering the fact that the complainant is the wife and there is also a matrimonial dispute between the parties, if the applicants appear before the court concerned and move an application for bail, the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself, on its merit. In case, it is deferred or rejected for any reason, the court concerned may consider granting interim bail to the applicants. It is further made clear that since the applicants reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, in the event if the bail is granted the learned Magistrate may also consider releasing the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bond and single surety only.
7. Subject to the directions as aforesaid, the criminal misc. application stands disposed of.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.07.2016 Avneet/