Delhi District Court
Mohit Saxena vs State Of Delhi on 22 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mohit Saxena,
414/104A, Sarai Mali Khan,
Lucknow226003, U.P.
............ Revisionist
VERSUS
State of Delhi
Through SHO, PS Uttam Nagar.
IO Krishna ASI West, Delhi.
............. Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.05.2016. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 22.11.2016. DATE OF DECISION : 22.11.2016. JUDGMENT.
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Ld. MM. Vide this order Ld. MM has taken cognizance for the offence u/s. 498A/406/506/34 IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons and issued summons to all the accused persons.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2016, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the ground that Ld. MM has no jurisdiction to conduct trial of the alleged offence committed beyond territorial jurisdiction of West District, Delhi. In the FIR place of occurrence is stated to be at Bangalore. The place of residence of complainant is not relevant u/s. 177 Cr.P.C to register case u/s. 498A/406 IPC. Ld. MM has taken cognizance of offence without application of mind. The investigation has not been conducted in proper manner. IO has not CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 1 of 6 visited the spot at Bangalore nor conducted search and seizures. The marriage was solemnized at Lucknow and no ceremony has taken place in Delhi. As per FIR marriage was solemnized at Lucknow and petitioner has resided at Bangalore. Thus, Delhi Court has no jurisdiction. Ld. MM cannot take cognizance as no offence is committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Court. There are no allegations against other accused i.e. Parmod Kumar and Ragini, who are parents of the petitioner. It is prayed that order dated 16.02.2016 be set aside.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and perused the record of this court as well as Trial Court Record carefully.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of the revision petition and he has heavily placed reliance on judgment titled as "Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan" passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and judgment titled as "Ashok Das Vs. Ranjana Das" passed by Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State contends that Delhi Court has jurisdiction and he has placed reliance on judgment (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 301 titled as "Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr."
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on judgments titled as "Dr. Baljeet Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.", "Amit Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.", "Priyank Mehta & Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.", "Roshan Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Delhi" and "Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee".
5. In the present case first of all I am deciding whether Delhi Court has jurisdiction or not.
CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 2 of 6Admittedly, the complainant is resident of Delhi and in her complaint, she has mentioned her address as A97, Nawada Metro, Govt. School, Nawada Gaon, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59. At the time of marriage, complainant was resident of Delhi and this fact is not denied by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. As per the complaint, marriage was solemnized at Lucknow, UP and thereafter, complainant along with her husband i.e. petitioner shifted to Bangalore. In the complaint, she has also mentioned that earlier she has given complaint dated 12.07.2013 to SI Himmat Singh and this complaint is also annexed with chargesheet. In the complaint dated 12.07.2013, complainant has leveled specific allegations against the petitioner. Thre are allegation of harassment by the motherinlaw of the complainant and her husband i.e. petitioner and here is also allegation that she was beaten by petitioner and his mother. She also leveled allegation that petitioner had given push and she received injuries on her head. It is also mentioned in the complaint that petitioner put pressure to terminate the pregnancy. She also mentioned that her motherinlaw and fatherin law used to mentally harass her by making telephone calls from Lucknow. It is also mentioned that in the month of September, 2011 her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw came at Bangalore and she was given beatings by them there. There are also allegation that her in laws had taunted her that they will again marry the petitioner as some family is willing to pay Rs. 12 lacs as dowry, car, gold and other articles. It is also allegation of beatings to the complainant by the petitioner as well as his parents.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance titled as "Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan" passed by Hon'ble Apex Court of India but Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.". In this judgment, it is held that "normal rule is that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 3 of 6 a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area and takes place in different local area as per Section 178, the court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into to tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued". In this judgment, it is also held that "continuing offence is committed in more local areas than one, offence triable by court having jurisdiction over any such local area. Complaint filed by appellant wife at Gaya alleging ill treatment and curelty at the hands of her husband and his relatives at matrimonial home in Ranchi and that she was frocibly taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences in case their dowry demand was not met. It is held that "as the offence was a continuing one and episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment or illtreatment meted out to complainant, SDJM at Gaya had jurisdiction to proceed with criminal case instituted therein".
In the present case, complainant was resident of Delhi prior to the marriage and engagement ceremony was taken place at Delhi and marriage was solemnized at Lucknow and thereafter, complainant and petitioner shifted to Bangalore. When some dispute arose between them then complainant came to Delhi and filed complaint dated 12.07.2013. Matter was compromised between the parties and they started residing at Bangalore. Complainant again gave complaint dated CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 4 of 6 25.04.2014.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Dr. Baljeet Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr." wherein, it is held that "offence under Section 498A of IPC is of continuing nature, it could not be said that Courts at Delhi lacked necessary territorial jurisdiction".
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Amit Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." wherein, it is held that "Sagai ceremony and marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 3 was solemnized at Delhi. Thereafter, parties went to Pune where jewellery was taken from respondent no. 3 and she was harassed and taunted for bringing cheap things and cash was demanded for purchasing gifts and jewelery. As per allegations set out in FIR, part of cause of action had taken place at Delhi, consequence thereof Delhi court has jurisdiction".
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Priyank Mehta and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr." wherein, it is held that "place where wife demands return of her Stridhan property would also had territorial jurisdiction to try offence of criminal breach of trust". Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee" wherein, it is held that Clause (b) of Section 178 Cr.P.C envisages that "where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another" such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. It is also held that "complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humilitation meted out her in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 5 of 6 occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion one of the respondents had taken part".
In view of the above judgments, offence of harassment and dowry demand is continuing one and I am of the view that Delhi court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has heavily placed reliance on judgment titled as "Sonu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors.", wherein, it is held that "at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence or in other words to find out whether prima facie, case has been made out for summoning of accused persons. At this stage, the Ld. Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence of the complainant because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise of finding out at this stage whether the material will lead to conviction or not."
9. In view of the above discussions and judgments cited above, I am of the view that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and Delhi Court has jurisdiction for trial. Ld. MM has rightly passed the order dated 16.02.2016 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
on 22.11.2016. ASJ05 (W)/THC/Delhi
CR No. 36/16 & Case No. 56082/16. Page No. 6 of 6