SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ansar Ahmad Salim Ansari And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 October, 2018

1 CrAppln 2080 18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2080 OF 2018

ANSAR AHMAD SALIM ANSARI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ANR

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chatterji Joydeep.
APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.D. Munde.
Advocate for respondent No. 2 : Mr. P. K. Ippar (appointed)

CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J.
RESERVED ON : 15th OCTOBER, 2018.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th OCTOBER, 2018.
PER COURT :

1. This is an application filed by the original accused under the

provisions 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of

Regular Criminal Case No. 157 of 2018 from the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Dhule to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada,

District Nandurbar.

2. The respondent No. 2 lodged first information report No.

69/2017 against the applicants for the offences punishable under

section 498A, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

at Chalisgaon Road Police Station, Dhule.

3. The applicant No. 1 is husband of respondent No. 2 and the

applicants No. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
1/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::
2 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
respondent No. 2 and applicants No. 4 and 5 are the sister-in-laws of

the respondent No. 2. The marriage took place between applicant No.

1 and respondent No.2 on 06.05.2017 at Dhule. Initially, the

respondent No. 2 was treated well for some time. Thereafter the

applicants started illtreatment to the respondent No. 2 on various

grounds and they were demanding an amount of Rs. 5 lakh for

Cushion Making Shop. The concerned police after investigation filed

charge-sheet bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 157 of 2018.

4. Heard Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants, learned

APP for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ippar, learned counsel for

respondent NO. 2 (appointed).

5. Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants submitted that

since all the alleged act constitute the offence in the charge-sheet are

said to have been done at Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. Learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Shahada, would be the appropriate Court,

having jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Mr. Chatterji invited my

attention to the various allegations made in the first information report

and by pointing out the same he submitted that all the alleged act of

illtreatment was at Shahada when the respondent No. 2 was residing

with the applicants at Shahada. In support of his submissions Mr.

Chatterji, learned counsel relied upon the observations in case of

2/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::
3 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
Shekhar Mahire and others V.s Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire and anr

in Criminal Application No. 2768 of 2008 decided by this Court. He

further relied upon the similar observations made by this Court in

Criminal Writ Petition No. 443 of 2017 (Dr. Saurabh Velukar V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and anr).

6. On perusal of the allegations in the first information report

dated 23.10.2017 it reveals that after the marriage when the

respondent No. 2 went to reside in her matrimonial house, the accused

persons were illtreating the respondent No. 2 on the ground that she

was not knowing cooking. They also started making false complaint

with the brother of the respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that all

the applicants/accused were illtreating the respondent No. 2 on

account of dowry. So taking into consideration the allegations in the

first information report in its entirety, it appears that all the allegations

as to the alleged illtreatment given by the applicants was at Shahada,

when the respondent no. 2 was residing with the applicants.

Therefore, the place of alleged offence appears to be at Shahada,

District Nandurbar.

7. In view of the above facts, the provisions of section 177, 178,

179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be looked into, which

reads as follows:

3/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::

4 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial – Every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose 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 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 different local
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.”

8. I have carefully gone through the first information report and

the other relevant papers from which it appears that the entire

allegations with reference to the illtreatment given by the applicants to

respondent No. 2 are at her matrimonial place Shahada. There are no

allegations against the applicants about the illtreatment to the

4/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::
5 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
respondent No. 2 when she was residing at her parental house nor it is

stated by any of the witness that the applicants have illtreated the

respondent No. 2 when she was residing at her parental house at

Dhule.

9. In case of Shekhar Mahire (supra), this Court has observed

as follows :

“Looking into the important question as to whether the
court at the place where the complainant-wife resides will
have a jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not, Mr.
Ashok Mundargi the learned senior counsel was requested
to assist the court in the matter and act as amicus curiae.
Mr. Mundargi graciously agreed to do so. I must place on
record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Mundargi,
the learned senior counsel.

Taking the Court through various provisions of Section 126,
182, 183, 179 the learned senior counsel submits that
wherever the legislature intended that the court other than
the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was
committed will have a jurisdiction to enquire into the said
offence, the legislature has no specifically provided. He
submits that in so far as offence under Section 498-A is
concerned, it has not been provided by the legislature that
it will be enquired into at any other place other than where
the offence has taken place. Relying on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith Ors. vs.

5/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::
6 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
Inspector of Police, Chennai Anr. [(2004) 8 SCC 100], the
learned counsel submits that offence under Section 498-A is
not a continuous offence. The court at the place at which
the complainant resides i.e. her parents’ place will have no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned counsel
further submits that in so far as the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) vs. Prashant
Kumar Mukherjee [(1997)5 SCC 30] is concerned, in the
said case there was an allegation that the demand of dowry
and assault on her had taken place at her parents place and
therefore in the peculiar facts, it was held that the place
where the complainant was residing will have jurisdiction.”

10. In view of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure particularly section 177, 178 and 179 and the observations

of the above cases, I am of the opinion that the place of ordinary trial

shall be at Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahda, District Nandurbad

and not at Dhule.

11. In view of the above, the application is allowed.

12. The proceedings Regular Criminal Case No 157 of 2018

pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule is hereby

transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada,

District Nandurbar, for its disposal, in accordance with law. It is

needless to state that the proceeding shall stand transferred for its

6/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::
7 CrAppln 2080 18.odt
present stage along with the evidence, if any, recorded.

13. Fees of the appointed learned counsel is quantified to Rs.

3000/- (Rs. three thousand only).

14. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

(K. L. WADANE, J.)

mkd

7/7

::: Uploaded on – 19/10/2018 22/10/2018 02:01:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation