wp443-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.443 OF 2017
1. Dr. Saurabh s/o Shivhar … Petitioners
Velukar,
Age 32 years, Occu: Medical
Practitioner Student
2. Adv. Surekha Shivhar Yelurkar
Age 53 yars, Occu: Advocate
3. Dr. Shivhar s/o Kerba Yelurkar
Age 62 years, Occu: Retired
All R/o Meghdoot, Kava Naka,
Katpur Road, Latur
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Dr. Mayuri Saurabh Yelurkar
Age 29 years, Ocu: Medical
Practitioner,R/o C/o Venkatrao
Shete, Vakil Colony, Near
Hanuman Temple, Gangakhed,
District Parbhani.
… Respondents
S/Shri S. H. Jagiasi, D. S. Gagiasi and N. D. Jagiasi,
Advocates for the petitioners,
Shri A.P. Basarkar, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J.
RESERVED ON : 6th April, 2018.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th April, 2018.
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
1/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioners/original accused for following relief:
“(B) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction of like
nature, the order dated 18.02.2017, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed in
Criminal Revision No. 21/2016 so also the order
passed below Exh.27 in R.C.C. No. 26/2015 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Gangakhed, dated 19.09.2016 may kindly be quashed
and set aside.”
3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as
follows:
(1)Petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent no.2 and
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1.
Marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 took
place on 14.02.2013. According to the petitioners,
after the marriage, respondent No.2 resided with
petitioner No.1 for about three months and thereafter
she left the matrimonial house on her own accord.
Petitioners requested respondent No.2 to come and
resume company of petitioner No.1, however, there was
2/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
no response.
(2)On 07.08.2014, respondent No.2 lodged complaint with
Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum. Thereafter, on
16.11.2014, respondent No.2 again lodged complaint with
the Police Station, Gangakhed alleging that the
petitioners were ill-treating respondent No.2 on
various counts and they were also demanding an amount
of Rs.20 lakhs for higher education of petitioner
no.1, who is Doctor by profession. It is alleged that
due to ill-treatment given by the petitioners,
respondent no.2 was required to be admitted in the
Hospital. On the basis of complaint lodged by the
complainant/respondent No.2 offence came to be
registered against petitioners at Crime No.291/2014 for
the offence punishable under section 498-A, 504, 506
read with section 34 IPC with the Police Station,
Gangakhed Dist.Parbhani where the parents of respondent
No.2 are residing.
(3)After registration of crime, concerned police have
conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet.
Petitioners filed application for discharge but the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed
3/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/201813/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
rejected the application on 19.09.2016. Being
aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred
Criminal Revision Application No.21/2016 before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. Learned
Additional sessions Judge rejected the revision
application. Hence this writ petition.
4. I have heard arguments of Mr. Jagiasi, Advocate
for the petitioners, Mr. Mundhe, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
on following points:
(1)Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court with reference
to place on trial;
(2) Inordinate delay in filing of complaint; and
(3)Earlier complaint filed by respondent No.2 before
the Women’s Grievance Redressal Forum was closed.
During the course of argument, leaned counsel for
the petitioners invited my attention to the contents of
the complaint as well as supplementary statement of
respondent No.2. Looking to the entire contents of the
4/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
complaint as well as supplementary statements and
statements of other witnesses all the alleged ill-
treatment given to the respondent No.2 was at her
matrimonial place i.e. at Latur. Admittedly, the
petitioners are resident of Latur whereas, parents of
respondent No.2 are resident of Gangakhed, Dist.
Parbhani. Therefore, according to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Criminal Court at Gangakhed
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged
offence. Therefore, on this count itself, the first
information report and the charge-sheet needs to be
quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
on the provisions of sections 177, 178 and 179 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as under:
“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.-
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a Court within whose lo
local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it
is uncertain in which of several local areas
an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed, partly in
5/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in
differentlocal areas, it may be inquired into or tried
by a Court having jurisdiction over any of
such local areas.
179. Offence triable where act is done or
consequence ensues.:- When an act is an
offence by reason of anything which has been
done and of a consequence which has ensued,
the offence may be inquired into or tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction such
thing has been done or such consequence has
ensued. ”
7. I have carefully gone through the First
Information Report/complaint and statements recorded
by the Investigating Officer during investigation. On
perusal of the same, it appears that entire allegations
are with reference to the ill-treatment given by
petitioners to respondent No.2 at Matrimonial place
i.e. at Latur. There is no allegation against the
petitioners about ill-treatment to respondent no.2 when
6/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/201813/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
she was residing at her parental house nor it is stated
by any of the witnesses that the petitioners have
demanded money when respondent No.2 was residing at her
parental house.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has relied upon the observations of Gujrat High Court
in the case of Jagdishprasad Ramshwarupprasad Gupta
ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and another in Cri. Misc.
Application No.11014/2015, which reads thus:
“21.A plain reading of the FIR and the charge-
sheet papers reveal that the allegations
levelled by the respondent No.2 are quite
vague, general and sweeping, specifying no
instances of criminal conduct. Although the
Respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her
husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed
all the close relatives of her husband in the
FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded
stereo-type statements of the witnesses who
are none other than the parents and other
relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed
a charge-sheet. If a person is made to face a
criminal trial on some general and sweeping
allegations without bringing on record any
specific instances of criminal conduct, it is
nothing but abuse of process of the Court.
The Court owes a duty to subject the
7/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
allegations levelled in the complaint to a
thorough scrutiny to find out prima facie
whether there is any grain or truth in the
allegations or involving certain individuals
in a criminal charge. To prevent abuse of
process of the Court; and to save the
innocent from false prosecutions at the hands
of unscrupulous litigants, the criminal
proceedings even if they are at the stage of
framing of the charge, if they appear to be
frivolous and false, should be quashed at the
threshold.
9. Aforesaid observations are inapplicable to the
facts of the present case because, there are specific
allegations against each of the accused/petitioners
with reference to ill-treatment to respondent no.2 and
an offence punishable under 498-A IPC is registered.
Therefore, it is not desirable to quash and set aside
the F.I.R. Besides the complaint, there are specific
allegations made by various witnesses in their
statements before the Police. Therefore, it cannot be
termed that the allegations against the petitioners are
vague.
10. As referred above, certainly none of the acts
alleged by respondent No.2 had taken at the place
8/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
where the offence is registered i.e. at Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani. The entire series of instances,
allegations took place at Latur. In such circumstances,
it was for the investigating officer to register the
office at Crime No.0 and then transfer it to the police
station at Latur, where the petitioners are residing.
Instead of doing so, the Gangakhed police registered
the offence, carried out the investigation and
submitted charge sheet. Apparently, it seems that
Criminal Court at Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani has no
jurisdiction to try and decide the criminal case
against the present petitioners in view of provisions
of section 177, 178 and 179 Cr.PC. Merely because
the charge sheet was submitted in the criminal Court
where the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to try
and decide the case, on that count alone the criminal
proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside. That
proceeding can be transferred from the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangakhed to criminal
Court at Latur.
11. Learned counsel or respondent No.2 has rightly
relied upon the observation of this Court in the case
of Shekhar Shivdas Mahire ors. Vs. Sau. Sarikabai
9/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
Shekhar Mahire and Anr., reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri)
1766, wherein it is observed that FIR alleging that
petitioners has physically and mentally ill-treated
complainant on account of unlawful demand of dowry and
thereby committed offence under section 498A. There are
no allegations of any ill treatment at place where
parents of complainant resided. Entire allegations
pertain to matrimonial home of the complainant.
Therefore, it is held that Court at the place where
complaint resides i.e. her parent’s place has no
jurisdiction to entertain complaint. However, in the
interest of justice, this Court, in the aforesaid
case, has transferred the criminal case from the place
of parents of victim to the place where her in-laws are
residing. In Para 15 of the judgment this Court has
observed as under:
“15. In the present case as already
discussed herein above, there are no
allegations of any ill-treatment at the
place where the parents of the complainant
resided. The entire allegations pertain to
the matrimonial home of the complainant
i.e. Nashik. In that view of the matter, he
proceeding before the Court at JMFC, Shahada
are not tenable. However, I find that10/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
inspite of quashing the proceedings, it
would be in the interest of justice to
transfer the proceeding from the Court of
JMFC Shahada to the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nashik. The application
is therefore allowed by directing the
proceeding bearing CR No.126/2006 registered
with Shahada Police Station and Charge-sheet
No.09/2007 filed in RCC No.14/2007 pending
before the learned J.M.F.C. Shahad to be
transferred to the Court of learned Chief
Judicial magistrate, Nashik, who shall allot
the same to the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Nashik. It is needless to
stage that the proceedings shall stand
transferred from the present stage along-
with the evidence, if any, recorded.”
12. Here, in the present case also, as already
discussed herein above, there are no allegations of any
ill-treatment at the place where the parents of the
complainant resided. Entire allegations pertain to
matrimonial home of the complaint i.e. at Latur. In
view of the matter, the proceedings before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed Dist.
Parbhani are not tenable. However, I find that instead
of quashing the proceedings, it would be in the
interest of justice to transfer the proceedings from
11/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Latur.
13. Second point of argument of the petitioners is
that there was inordinate delay of 18 months caused in
filing of the FIR. While considering the writ petition,
that aspect cannot be taken into consideration because
the complaint may explain the detail as to why the
first information report/complaint was lodged after
about 18 months. So far as the third point of
arguments on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it
is seen that earlier complaint lodged by respondent
No.2 with Women’s Grievance Redressal Forum is closed.
I have carefully gone through the proceedings before
the Women’s Grievance Redressal Forum from which, it
appears that the proceeding was closed as parties to
the proceeding were not cooperating and not attending
the proceedings and the complainant/respondent no.2
was intending to file complaint with the police.
Therefore, the delay in filing the first information
report and closing of the earlier complaint cannot the
the ground to quash and set aside the proceedings.
12/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/201813/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
wp443-17.odt
14. In view of the above, the writ petition is
disposed of with direction, that the proceeding in
Crime/FIR No.291/2014 registered with Gangakhed Police
Police Station and Charge-sheet filed in RCC No.26/2015
pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Gangakhed Dist.
Parbhani is transferred to the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Latur, who shall try himself or
allot the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction
at Latur. It is needless to state that the proceedings
shall stand transferred from its present stage along-
with the evidence, if any, recorded.
15. Rule is accordingly discharged. No costs.
(K. L. WADANE, J.)
JPC
13/13
::: Uploaded on – 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
