DHANNOBAI Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these matters are being decided by this common order because they revolve around similar points which are being adjudicated by this order.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 192 of 1996 has been preferred by Dhannobai widow of late Ramratan Sansi r/o village Gulkhedi, P.S. Pachor, tahsil Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, M.P. challenging the order which has been passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) in the matter of Sessions Trial No. 68/96 (State of M.P. v. Kanhaiyalal and 8 others) where in the Sessions Judge passed an order holding that he does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which initiated a prosecution against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others in view of provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge by that order returned the complaint directing the prosecution to file it in the Court having jurisdiction. Virtually by that order the learned Sessions Judge did not take cognizance of the complaint which was the result of F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others. The learned Sessions Judge held that the allegations made by Dhannobai against Kanhaiyalal and others (who are opponents in the present revision petitions and misc. criminal cases) are pertaining to acts of using girl Reena alias Vandana at Bombay for immoral purpose. By that order the learned Sessions Judge held that no acts in context with offences punishable under provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of I.P.C. took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Court Rajgarh (Biora). That order is being challenged by Dhannobai as well as State of M.P. as incorrect, improper and illegal. S.D.M. Rajgarh (Biora) had ordered that custody of Reena be handed over to Baijantibai. That order is being assailed by Dhannobai and State of M.P. by M. Cr. Cs.

(3.) FEW facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy created by counter claims which revolve around a girl who happens to be having the name as Reena alias Vandana. Dhannobai claims that she is her daughter and same sort of claim is made by opponent Baijantibai. It is still to be decided as to who is the real mother of said Reena alias Vandana. It is the allegation of Dhannobai in her F.I.R. which initiated a prosecution against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others mentioned above in respect of commission of offences punishable under provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of I.P.C. that though her daughter Reena alias Vandana was kept in the custody of opponent Kanhaiyalal in the year 1989 or so with a specific instruction to him that said Reena should not be removed from village Kadia which is situated in the local limits of Pachor police station of Rajgarh District, by she was taken to Bombay Kanhaiyalal and Baijantibai. Reena was so handed over in the custody of Kanhaiyalal by Dhannobai as Dhannobai had promised that she would be marrying said Reena to Mahesh son of Kanhaiyalal. It appears from the investigation done so far by officers of Pachor police station that Dhannobai was indebted to Kanhaiyalal for a sum of rupees 5000/ - or so and Dhannobai was unable to repay that amount to him and., therefore, Dhannobai had promised Kanhaiyalal that she would not be accepting dowry from him at the time of marriage of Reena with Mahesh s/o Kanhaiyalal. (It has been informed during the course of arguments that there is a custom prevalent in Sansi community that bridegroom has to offer dowry to the parents of bride before or at the time of marriage.)