Vikram Arora & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Neetu Arora moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 17.10.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to lodge a report against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said application, she has made all the allegations against the petitioners regarding cause of action either in Saharanpur, U.P. or Abhor in Punjab. On the basis of this application, learned Magistrate ordered to register the FIR. 2 Then on 6.11.2006, FIR was lodged against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the petitioners. On the basis of the chargesheet, learned Magistrate taken the cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 6.8.2007. Respondent no. 2 has also filed a counter affidavit wherein she has supported the version made in the FIR and has also annexed her statement as well as the statements of Smt. Lata Sahni, Natasha Shahni and Smt. Sakeena recorded under Section 161 CrPC. In her statement she has stated that she was married to petitioner no. 1 Vikram Arora in her maternal house at Mohalla Jafar Nawaj Jul, Sabji Mandi, House No. 4/636, Saharanpur. It was her second marriage as well as of Vikram Arora. Addresses of other witnesses are as under: (1) Smt. Lata Sahni, W/o Late Sri Omprakash Sahni, R/o Mohalla Jafar Nawaj Jul, Sabji Mandi, House No. 4/636, Saharanpur. (2) Natasha Sahni, D/o Late Sri Omprakash Sahni, R/ o Mohalla Jafar Nawaj Jul, Sabji Mandi, House No. 4/636, Saharanpur. (3) Smt. Sakeena, W/o Dr. AH Khan, R/o Olu Hameeda, Nadhi Road, Yamunanagar, Hariyana. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the cause of action as stated in the complaint arose either in Saharanpur, U.P. or in Abhor, Punjab. He further submitted that respondent no. 2 was first married to Anurag Kamboj and when the dispute arose between them, then the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against him under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 3 before the Court of CJM, Saharanpur. Lateron, compromise took place between the respondent no. 2 and Anurag Kamboj and their marriage was dissolved on the basis of compromise. He further submitted that thereafter respondent no. 2 got married to the petitioner no. 1 in pursuance of an advertisement published in a newspaper. She developed illicit relationship in between this period with one Tarun Kukreja and because of this, respondent no. 2 had some differences with the petitioners after the marriage. He also submitted that on 13.10.2006, respondent no. 2 left the house of the petitioners at about

11.30 am and taken with her Rs. 5000/- and 20 tolas gold and for this an FIR was also lodged against the respondent no. 2 in PS Abhor, Punjab. Thereafter on 14.10.2006, respondent no. 2 had also sent an FIR by FAX to the PS Abhor with the allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty by the petitioners and on 17.10.2006 with the same allegations she filed the present complaint against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. On her aforesaid report, Abhor police investigated the matter and after investigation submitted a report on 2.12.2006 in which they have stated that the allegations made against the petitioners by the complainant for demand of dowry and cruelty were found to be false. On her complaint dated

17.10.2006, the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, also sought a report from the PS Cantt., Dehradun and in compliance thereof the police reported that the complainant is the original resident of House No. 64, Suncity, Mallipur Road, Saharanpur, U.P. and it is the same house which has been alleged to be demanded by the petitioners. She was also married at Saharanpur. Mother of the complainant has been living in Dehradun since last four months. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. and the allegations made in the FIR, there is no evidence on the record to show that any part of cause of action arose in Dehradun or anywhere in the State of Uttarakhand. He further argued that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR itself reveals that no part of the alleged offence has been committed within the territory of Uttarakhand. All the cause of action arose either in Saharanpur, U.P. or in Abhor, Punjab. Specific pleading to this effect has been taken on behalf of the petitioners in the affidavit filed along with the petition and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are without jurisdiction. Attention of this Court is drawn to Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, which are reproduced as under: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

#178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or 5 tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” I am in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no part of cause of action arose in the State of Uttarakhand. Whatever allegations have been made in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, they are related to either Saharanpur in the State of U.P. or Abhor in the State of Punjab where the petitioners reside. No demand or harassment either mental or physical has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand. Hence, as per the provisions contained under Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not maintainable in the State of Uttarakhand, as no cause of action whatsoever has been alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttarakhand. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134, wherein at 19 it has been observed as under: “When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt 6 with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” My view is further fortified by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in III (2008) SLT 712, wherein it has been held that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the Court where no part of offence was committed. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 6.8.2007 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1147/2007 State v. Vikram Arora & Ors. under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed with the observation that complainant (respondent no. 2) may make a complaint regarding her grievance before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. Interim order dated

9.1.2008 stands vacated. Prabodh (Dharam Veer, J.) July 12, 2010