SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kunal & Ors vs State & Anr on 24 May, 2017

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3499 / 2015

1. Kunal S/o Gopal Ji Panpaliya, Age-30 years,

2. Gopal Panpaliya S/o Govind Ji Panpaliya, Age 59 years,

3. Smt. Alka Panpaliya W/o Govind Ji Panpaliya, Age 57 years.

4. Peeyush Panpaliya S/o Gopal Ji Panpaliya, Age 25 years
All the petitioners are by caste Maheshwari R/o B-603, Shivam
Avenue, opposite Reshma Raw House, Poona Patiya, Surat,


1. State of Rajasthna.

2. Smt. Rekha Boob W/o Kunal Panpaliya, D/o Pukhraj Boob, Age
30 years, R/o 114, Airforce Area, Jodhpur.

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mahesh Thavni
For Respondent(s) :Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
For Complainant(s):Mr. Lalit Solanki

1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the criminal

proceeding initiated in pursuance of the FIR No.170/2015

registered at Mahila Thana, Jodhpur East under Sections 498A,

406, 323 of the IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that territorial

jurisdiction of the case has not been appropriately exercised as in

the FIR, the complete proceedings were said to have happened in


(2 of 4)

3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

of Abraham Ajit Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai

Anr., AIR 2004 SC 4286, the relevant portion of this judgment

which is as follows :-

“A similar plea relating to continuance of the
offence was examined by this Court in Sujata
Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar
Mukherjee (1997 (5) SCC 30). There the
allegations related to commission of alleged
offences punishable under Section
498A, 506 and 323 IPC. On the factual
background, it was noted that though the dowry
demands were made earlier the husband of the
complainant went to the place where complainant
was residing and had assaulted her. This Court
held in that factual background that clause (c)
of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present
case the factual position is different and the
complainant herself left the house of the husband
on 15.4.1997 on account of alleged dowry
demands by the husband and his relations. There
is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations
about any demand of dowry or commission of any
act constituting an offence much less at Chennai.
That being so, the logic of Section 178 (c) of the
Code relating to continuance of the offences
cannot be applied.”

4. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the

respondents are abusing the process of law with the intention of

creating harassment as there was a compromise and the matter

was settled between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner also

stated that the earlier interim order passed by this Court was only

on account of the fact that the FIR did not disclosed any

jurisdiction beyond the state of Gujarat.

(3 of 4)

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has however, pointed out

from the record that the petitioner No.1 had come to Jodhpur and

stayed in Chandra Hotel in a marriage and had assailed the

respondent No.2 and thus, the cause of action at some point had

arisen in the local jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor also

opposed the applicability of the precedent law cited by counsel for

the petitioner on account of the fact that in Para 11 of the

precedent, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that the territorial

jurisdiction cannot be gone beyond when there was no whisper of

allegation at a particular place whereas as per the learned Public

Prosecutor, some component of offence had occurred in Jodhpur. It

is also stated by Public Prosecutor that investigation is complete

and prima facie offence is found to made out against the petitioner

No.1 only.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the

record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once some

incident of violation of law is attributed at Jodhpur then the

jurisdictional objection could not be sustained and since the

prosecution has already found prima facie to be made out against

the petitioner No.1 only, therefore, apparently there is no reason

to make any interference in the present FIR, hence the present

petition is dismissed.


(4 of 4)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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