RAGHVENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. This criminal revision has been filed against summoning order dated 25.7.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri, by which the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that from the averments of complaint, no prima-facie case is made out and the court below while summoning the revisionists has not considered this aspect. It has also been submitted that as per allegations of the complaint, alleged cruelty was caused at District Etawah, therefore, the courts at Mainpuri have no jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that since the date of marriage the revisionists had tortured and caused mental as well as physical cruelty to the daughter of the complainant and had continued the illegal demand of dowry, therefore, the courts at Mainpuri have jurisdiction to try the case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention towards Sudeep Soni Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (56) ACC 711, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that a situation or set of facts entitles a party to maintain an action. In this case the entire offence as disclosed in the complaint was committed at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh State, therefore, it was found that court at Uttar Pradesh had no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon Rajiv Modi Vs. Sanjay Jain, 2009 (66) ACC 643, in which Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the appellants company was appointed as C&F Agent of the respondent company in Patna, therefore, the part of cause of action arose in Patna and Judicial Magistrate, Patna have right to take cognizance in the matter.

(3.) HON 'ble the Apex Court has further held that placing the reliance of Section 178 in particular (b) and (c) found that in view of allegations in the complaint that the offence was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas if Raipur, the learned Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted in such courts. I have gone through the above case laws and the complaint filed by the complainant. From the allegations of the complaint, it appears that the marriage was solemnized at Village Tiliyaani, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri and there was demand of additional dowry from the date of marriage however, the "Vidayi" of daughter of the complainant was done after some negotiations. Again in the Vidayi of "Chauthi" there was demand of additional dowry and she was tortured in her matrimonial home for additional dowry. It was also alleged that on 23.8.2010 she was ousted from the matrimonial home after which a Panchayat was arranged and she was again sent to matrimonial home on 20.11.2010. She was again beaten by the revisionists regarding which he got the information by telephone and he rescued her daughter from the matrimonial home. From the allegations of the complaint, it is clear that the demand of additional dowry started from the date of marriage at Village Tiliyaani, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that a Panchayat was organized and his daughter was sent to matrimonial home but again she was beaten by the accused persons regarding which the information by telephone was given. It appears that the demand of dowry started just from the date of marriage which continued and it has also been mentioned that the daughter of complainant was also tortured at the time of Vidayi "Chauthi", certainly which was from the parental home of the bride, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 178 (b) and (c) and in view of provisions of Section 179 Cr.P.C., the courts at Mainpuri as well as Etawah have the jurisdiction to try the case. Learned court below while summoning the revisionists has considered all aspects of the matter and I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order. The revision is dismissed.