M.Cr.C. No. 1275/2006
22/06/2010:
Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed
by the applicants for quashing the proceedings pending before
the JMFC, Chhindwara vide criminal case no. 659/2009 for
the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 325, 34 of IPC
and section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In nutshell the prosecution case against the applicants is
that the complainant Shabnoor Bano was married with
applicant no. 4 Irfan on 30/03/03. After marriage her husband
alongwith other applicants used to demand dowry and harass
her. It is also alleged that applicants have beaten her therefore,
Shabnoor Bano came back to her maternal home where a child
was born to her. Thereafter, on 27/04/2005 Shabnoor Bano
phoned applicant no.4/husband and asked to take back her but
applicant no.4 has told her that unless the demanded money
and a Maruti Car is given to him, he will not take her from
Chhindwara. On 28/04/2005, a FIR was lodged in Police
Station Junnardeo, District Chhindwara u/s 498-A/34 of IPC
and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel on behalf
of the applicant submits that complainant Shabnoor Bano was
never harassed at Chhindwara therefore, Chhindwara Court has
no jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel further argued
that the telephone call was made by Shabnoor Bano to her
husband Irfan and because Shabnoor Bano has made the call,
therefore, Chhindwara Court has no jurisdiction. He further
argued that at the most applicant no.4 can be tried at
Chhindwara Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Shri G.S.
Thakur, Panel Lawyer submits that the offences u/s 498-A of
IPC is a continuing offence and cruelty is defined in
explanation to section 498-A of IPC. This analogy will not
make any defence that who made telephone call but if any
demand of dowry is made on telephone call while Shabnoor
Bano was living at Chhindwara then Chhindwara Court has
also the jurisdiction to try the case.
In Dhananjay Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (1)
MPWN SN 13 it has been specifically held that if any demand
of dowry is made on telephone even then at concerned place,
the Court will have jurisdiction to try the case. The Apex
Court in the judgment Sujata Mukherji Vs. Prashant Kumar
Mukherji, AIR 1997 SC 2465 held in the factual background
of clause (c ) of Section 178 of Cr.P.C that in such cases both
the places should have jurisdiction. In the case at hand there is
specific allegation in the statement of Shabnoor Bano that her
husband Irfan demanded dowry on telephone therefore,
Chhindwara Court has also the jurisdiction u/s 177 of Cr.P.C.
In consequences of aforesaid legal and factual position
because act of demand of dowry was made at Chhindwara as
well as at Nagpur therefore, no case is made out for exercising
of jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C by this Court for quashment
of the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Chhindwara.
Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed
at the motion stage.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned JMFC,
Chhindwara. Applicants shall remain present before the trial
Court on 19/07/2010.
(S.C. Sinho)
Judge
nn