ABHAY ALIAS GUDDU Vs. BHAVANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashment of the private complaint bearing No. 125 5/2006 filed by the non -applicant Smt. Bhawana this petition has been filed under section 482 of the CrPC by the applicant. It is contended by the applicant present in person that the cause of action is of the year 4.3.2005 of Guramkhedy Semri -Harchandra, Sohagpur District Hoshangabad. However Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore is having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and to take cognizance. It is further his contention that averments made in the private complaint are fictitious, vexatious and oppressive, looking to the fact that after deliver a child the non -applicant has not come back to her in laws home however petitioner has submitted an application in Paramarsh Kendra, Pipariya. Thereafter the allegation of demand of dowry has been alleged against him in such circumstances the present petition may be dismissed. At last it is his contention that on the basis of averments made in the private complaint on the face of it the ingredient of section 498A of the IPC has not been made out, therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Manish Yadav appearing of behalf of the non -applicant wife contends that looking to the averments of the private complaint it is clear that the initial incident took place in village Semri Tahsil Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad. Thereafter the demand of dowry took place at Sanwer where the complaint was made and S.H.O. concerned has also submit his report as available Annexure P/5 dated 19.4.2006 thereby also it is clear that the offence for demand of dowry cruelty and harassment is made out. In such circumstances the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner is devoid of any substance. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2011 AIR(SC) 1674. Learned Counsel further contends that it is a case wherein as per the averments made in the private complaint it is clear that ingredients of section 498 A of the IPC are fully established and after recording the statement of non -applicant, the Court has rightly taken cognizance, however the interference is not warranted. At this stage non -applicant present in Court was stated that the petitioner has solemnized the second marriage from the another lady and residing with her and also having two children deserting her and a minor child thus no case at this stage is made out, to quash private complainant.

(3.) At this stage petitioner contends that in the private complaint Annexure P/1 the name of petitioners Abhay, Sitadevi, Shyamsunder and Lata were mentioned but now the typed copy which is filed Annexure P/4 the name of Alok Sharma has further been added. The aforesaid name was added without any order by the trial Court. The said issue requires consideration by the trial Court prior to adjudication of the private complaint on merit. In this respect the trial Court shall held an enquiry and thereafter appropriate orders of deleting the name of the Alok Sharma may be passed. In the facts and in view of the discussion interfere in this matter quashing the private complaint exercising power under section 482 of CrPC is not warranted.