AIJAJUDDIN QURAISHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 4.8.93 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 7505 for 1992 dismissing the revisionist application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the complaint. The complaint was filed under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 406 IPC with the allegations that the marriage of the complainant was settled with Dr. Aijas-uddin. Accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No. 1 Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. It was further said that during negotiations of marriage all the accused made several demands of dowry as consideration for marriage. Under compulsion the parents of the complainant fulfil their all demands. A sum of Rs. 90,886/-was spent in the marriage. Several parents valuable articles and ornaments were given in consideration of the marriage. The marriage took place on 28-4-92. The complainant sent to reside with the accused at Varanasi and lived there upto 3-5-92. Accused made further demand of Rupees. One lac. She showed her inability to bring this amount from her parents whereupon she was tortured physically and mentally treated cruelty and finally on 2.5.92 she was divorced. She was deprived of all the marriage presents and was turned out of the house only with the clothes which she was wearing.

(2.) The accused moved an application stating that from a perusal of Para 8 of the complaint it is clear that whatever was demanded by the accused at Varanasi and, therefore Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to try the case. It was also stated that in so far as Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned the Courts at Varanasi would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that marriage presents were given at Gorakhpur where the marriage took place and therefore, the Courts at Gorakhpur would have jurisdiction in so far as the return of the marriage presents etc. was concerned. He was of the opinion that the divorce was made at Varanasi and the sum of Rs. One lac was demanded at Varanasi but since the marriage took place at Gorakhpur and marriage presents were also given there the Courts at Gorakhpur would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The result was that the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by it the accused have come to this Court.