LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-19

NEERAJ RATHOR Vs. PROMODINI

Decided On August 04, 2008
NEERAJ RATHOR Appellant
V/S
PROMODINI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally at motion stage on the petition under sections 482 and 177 of Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings which are pending before the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Vidisha (M. P.) in Case No. 5/2007 under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 4 read with section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that her parents are residing at vidisha and before that she was residing at ujjain, where her in-laws are residing. The respondent filed a case against the petitioner. The copy of complaint is Annexure p1. The allegation, regarding demand of dowry was falsely made against the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner is residing at Ujjain, therefore, Vidisha Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) IN support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on baljit Singh and Another v. State of Jandk and others. He also placed reliance in the case of Sita Devi (Smt.) and others v. State of M. P. , in which it is held that under sections 407 of Cr. P. C. , assurance of fair trial is first imperative of dispensation of justice. . . motion for transfer. . . considerations. It is also held that trial should be allowed to take place in the Court who has territorial jurisdiction. Further, counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the other bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Archana v. State, in which it is observed that case was registered before the court of j. M. F. C. Morena while incident took place at Gwalior within the jurisdiction of PS janakganj. Proceedings of the criminal case pending before the trial Court were quashed. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Om Hemrajani v. State of U. P. ,4 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that place to try the offence, emphasis is on the place where offence has been committed. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Manish Ratan and Ors. v. State of m. P. and Anr.