LAWS(ALL)-1988-2-16

VIJAI RATAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On February 18, 1988
VIJAI RATAN SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications under S. 482 Cr. P.C. Both have been filed by husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party 2 Smt. Madhu Bala in connection with the complaints that were filed by Smt. Madhu Bala, opposite party 2 at Ghaziabad. In both these proceedings the applicants want to get rid of the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife Smt. Madhu Bala at Ghaziabad and their only argument is that Courts at Ghaziabad have no jurisdiction to entertain these complaints, because the offence as alleged has been committed outside Ghaziabad. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out that the question at this stage is not whether there is any truth in the allegations made, but question is whether on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint the Ghaziabad Courts will have jurisdiction. For the purpose of S. 482 Cr. P. C. allegations of complaints are taken to be correct as held in the case, J. P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar (1986) 3 SCC 67 and Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 370.

(2.) First I take-up the Criminal Misc. Application No. 4481 of 1987. In this application the prayer of the applicants is that entire proceedings of Case No. 44 of 1987 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad including the complaint and the summoning order may be quashed. On the file of this case, I have not been able to find summoning order passed by the Magistrate. However, the copy of complaint is on the record as Annexure-1. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants it has been said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Ss. 498A and 120-B IPC.

(3.) From the copy of complaint it appears that marriage was performed at Ghaziabad and then the wife was taken outside Ghaziabad where she was mal-treated and sent back to her father's house. It is alleged therein that the applicants in this application never gave her back her Stridhan which was given at the time of marriage. In the complaint it has been clarified that on account of the demand for dowry and mal-treatment, she fell ill on return to Ghaziabad and her husband even did not come to see. It has further been said that letters containing false accusation were sent to her at Ghaziabad