DR. BHOPAL SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SWAROOP SINGH, Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND RAGHHBIR SINGH GAHLOT, SUGAR CANE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2387 of 2002 State v. Dr. Bhopal Singh and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that cause of action has allegedly taken place within the territorial limits of the Lucknow Court, as such the proceedings before the Kashipur Court are liable to be quashed. Perusal of the Annexure 5 with the petition shows that the complainant lodged first information report at Nadehi (in the State of Uttarakhand) and complainant 's wife filed another first information report with Police Station Maidiao, (District Lucknow ). A final report (copy Annexure -13 to petition) was submitted by the police of said Police Station (Maidiao) on the ground that in respect of same offence crime has already been registered at Nadehi (in the State of Uttarakhand). The contents of the first information report disclose that though major part of the alleged harassment is said to have taken place within the territorial limits of Lucknow but the phone calls are said to have been made to the complainant at Nadehi. In the circumstances this Court is of the view that the doors of justice cannot be closed for the victim at both the places. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the case of Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 1 SCC (criminal) 109 and it is argued that the court in Uttarakhand has no jurisdiction in the matter. I have gone through said case law. In said case the Apex Court has observed that since no part of cause of action was found to have taken place in Ganga Nagar as such the court at Ganga Nagar had no jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case since part of cause of action is in the state of Uttarakhand as such the aforesaid case does not help the petitioners.