Delhi District Court
Sh. Jogesh Kumar Nagpal vs Smt. Madhu Rani on 4 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI09), CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI: DELHI
C.R No. 02/16
Sh. Jogesh Kumar Nagpal
S/o Sh. Surender Nagpal
R/o 61C, Shastri Nagar
Mathura, U.P.
........Revisionist
VERSUS
Smt. Madhu Rani
D/o Late Sh. Gobind Ram Makkar
W/o Sh. Jogesh Kumar Nagpal
R.o 5351/22, Ishwar Katra Ladoo
Paharganj, Delhi.
........Respondent
Date of Institution : 13.01.2016
Date of Arguments : 24.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 04.06.2016
JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Revisionist against the impugned Order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, ACMM (Central), Delhi, in C.C. No. 105/IP. Vide the impugned order the Revisionist was summoned by the Ld. Trial Court for the offence punishable C.R. No. 02/16 1 of 11 u/s 494 IPC.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as revealed from the Trial Court Record are as under:
2. The Respondent herein i.e. Ms. Madhu Rani (Complainant before the trial Court) has filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. against the Revisionist herein and five other persons, for summoning the accused persons u/s 494/420/120B/34 IPC. The case of the complainant is that she was married to the Revisionist on 27.11.2000 at Mathura, U.P. The marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. The parents of the complainant spent huge amount on the marriage. On 29.11.2000, the complainant was asked to handover her entire jewellery to her mother in law and since then, her jewellery is lying with the accused persons, who are named in the complaint. The articles of the complainant were not returned to her despite her demand. On 27.07.2002, a male child was born out of the wedlock and later on, the said child died.
3. The case of the complainant is that she has also filed the complaint against the Revisionist herein, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said complaint case is pending in the Court of Ms. C.R. No. 02/16 2 of 11 Kiran Gupta MM, Delhi. On 19.12.2012, the Revisionist herein and her mother in law told the complainant that the Revisionist herein has remarried and would not keep the complainant with him. Then, the complainant demanded her Stridhan from the accused persons, but they refused to handover the same to the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice on 23.12.2012 to the accused persons, whereby, the accused persons were asked to return the Stridhan of the complainant. Even thereafter, the accused persons did not return her Stridhan and have misappropriated the same.
4. The Revisionist herein, has filed a Petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of Divorce. The said petition of the Revisionist was decreed by the trial Court. Against the said Order, the complainant filed an appeal and the Order of the trial Court was stayed by the Appellate Court. During the proceedings of the Appeal and stay of the Decree of Divorce granted by the trial Court, the Revisionist married one Smt. Shalu D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gabba of Meerut, on 15.04.2013. The said marriage was performed in a Gurudwara at Faridabad, Haryana. The said marriage was performed by the Revisionist without the dissolution of his marriage with the complainant and therefore, the accused persons were C.R. No. 02/16 3 of 11 guilty of the offences punishable u/s 494/420/120B/34 IPC.
5. The complainant led presummoning evidence in the trial Court. She has examined herself as CW1. She has stated that she was married to the Revisionist on 27.11.2000 in Mathura, U.P., in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. In her presummoning evidence, she narrated the allegations as mentioned in her complaint. She stated that the Revisionist filed a divorce case against her u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed against her on 12.02.2013 by the Court of Ms. Neetu Pathak Ld. SCJ, Mathura, U.P., vide her Judgment Ex. CW1/2. Against the said Order, the Respondent filed an Appeal on 02.03.2013 and the Order of Ms. Neetu Pathak Ld. SCJ, dated 12.02.2013 was stayed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 02.03.2013. The Appeal of the complainant was allowed and the Order dated 12.02.2013 of Ms. Neetu Pathak Ld. SCJ was set aside by the Ld. Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 14.05.2013 Ex. CW1/4.
6. In her presummoning evidence, the complainant has also examined Sh. Suresh Kumar as CW2 and he has also corroborated the version of the complainant. The complainant also examined Sh. Jagjeet Singh as CW3. He C.R. No. 02/16 4 of 11 has stated that he is Gyaniji (Priest) in Gurudwara Panchayati, Gurudas Singh Ji, 2 B, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. He stated that Sh. Jogesh Kumar came to his Gurudwara for his marriage with Smt. Shalu Gabba, D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gabba. On 15.04.2013, his marriage was performed in their Gurudwara according to Sikh Rites and Ceremonies. The photographs of the said marriage are Ex. CW3/1 showing Sh. Jogesh Kumar and his wife Smt. Shalu Gabba. The copy of the Marriage Certificate was issued by the Gurudwara and the same is Mark A. The complainant has also examined Sh. Harnam Das as CW4, who is Sewadar in the Gurudwara referred above. He has stated that the persons shown in Ex. CW1/6 had come to their Gurudwara for marriage and they solemnized their marriage on 15.04.2013 in Gurudwara.
7. Thereafter, after hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the Ld. Trial Judge summoned the Revisionist herein, vide the impugned Order for the offence punishable u/s 494 IPC.
8. Revisionist being aggrieved by the impugned Order, has challenged the present Revision Petition on various grounds.
9. The Respondent has filed reply to the present Revision Petition. The averments of the petition are denied and the C.R. No. 02/16 5 of 11 respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.
10.I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the file and the Trial Court Record.
Arguments on behalf of Revisionist
11.It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the impugned Order has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court without jurisdiction, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. The Ld. Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason that the alleged offence u/s 494 IPC was committed in Faridabad, Haryana, and not within the jurisdiction of trial Court and therefore, the impugned Order being without jurisdiction has not sanctity. The Courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the complainant never resided with her husband in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.
12.The allegations of second marriage of the Revisionist with Smt. Shalu Gabba are without any base and same are false, for the reason that on 15.04.2013, engagement ceremony of the Revisionist was performed with Smt. Shalu Gabba in the Gurudwara Panchayati, 2 B Block, NIT Faridabad, Haryana. It was settled between the parties that the marriage would be C.R. No. 02/16 6 of 11 solemnized after the decision of the Appeal filed by the Revisionist which is pending in the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. To support his contention, the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has relied upon the photocopy of the certificate issued by the said Gurudwara to the effect that on 15.04.2013, engagement ceremony of the Revisionist was solemnized with Smt. Shalu Gabba and the marriage was agreed to be performed after the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
13.It was contended that no marriage was performed by the Revisionist with Smt. Shalu Gabba and further that if any alleged marriage has been performed, it was in Faridabad, Haryana and therefore, the Trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Arguments on behalf of Respondent
14.It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the Revisionist has failed to show any substantial ground for the revision of the impugned Order. It was contended that the plea taken by the Revisionist that he has performed engagement ceremony with Ms. Shalu Gabba on 15.04.2013 and not the marriage, is false. It was contended that on 15.04.2013, the Revisionist C.R. No. 02/16 7 of 11 has solemnized marriage with Smt. Shalu Gabba at Gurudwara Panchayati, Faridabad, Haryana.
15. It was contended that the Ld. Trial Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the complainant as the complainant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The attention was drawn to Section 182 (2) Cr.P.C., to show that trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It was contended that the Revision Petition is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal.
Discussion & Conclusion
16.Following facts are admitted:
a) The complainant was married to the Revisionist on 27.11.2000 in Mathura, U.P. and in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs.
b) The Revisionist filed a Divorce Petition and his petition was allowed by the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 12.02.2013.
c)Against the Judgment dated 12.02.2013, the complainant filed Appeal and vide Order dated 02.03.2013, the Order of the trial Court dated 12.02.2013 was stayed by the Appellate Court.
d)The Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the Appellate Court vide Order dated 14.05.2013 and Order C.R. No. 02/16 8 of 11 dated 12.02.2013 was set aside by the Appellate Court. Against the Judgment dated 14.05.2013, the Appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
e)The complainant is residing at Delhi at the address given in her complaint, after her matrimonial dispute with the Revisionist.
17.The first thing is that whether the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Section 182(2) Cr.P.C. reads as under: "Any offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage (or the wife of first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence)."
18. Admittedly, the complainant is residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts after the commission of the offence. Therefore, the trial Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
19.The case of the Revisionist is that on 15.04.2013, the Revisionist did not solemnize any marriage with Ms. Shalu Gabba and only their engagement ceremony was performed.
C.R. No. 02/16 9 of 11 In this regard, photocopy of the Certificate issued by Gurudwara has been filed on record which shows that on 15.04.2013, engagement ceremony of the Revisionist and Ms. Shalu Gabba was performed in the Gurudwara. On the other hand, complainant has filed on record in her presummoning evidence, the copy of the Certificate issued by the same Gurudwara to the effect that on 15.04.2013, marriage of the Revisionist was solemnized with Ms. Shalu Gabba. The complainant has also examined CW3 Sh. Jagjeet Singh and CW4 Sh. Harnam Das, who are Gyaniji (Priest), Sewadar, respectively, of the said Gurudwara. The question whether the certificate produced by the complainant is genuine or the certificate produced by the Revisionist is genuine is a matter of trial. However, at present, the certificate produced by complainant is also supported by the statements of CW3 Sh. Jagjeet Singh and CW4 Sh. Harnam Das.
20.At the time of summoning the accused, the Court has to see whether there is sufficient material on record or whether there is any ground to summon the accused. In the present case, the perusal of the statement of the complainant, the statements of CW3 Sh. Jagjeet Singh and CW4 Sh. Harnam Das and the documents relied upon by the complainant shows that there is sufficient material on record to summon the C.R. No. 02/16 10 of 11 Revisionist herein. Therefore, in my view there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Order. The impugned Order is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed.
21.The copy of this Judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with Trial Court Record.
The Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Surinder Kumar Sharma)
on 04.06.2016 Special Judge, P.C. Act
(CBI09), Central District
Delhi.
C.R. No. 02/16 11 of 11