SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rupinder Kaur vs Rupinder Kaur @ Preet And Ors on 31 July, 2018

CRM-M-28267-2018 -1-


Date of decision:-31.7.2018

Rupinder Kaur



Rupinder Kaur alias Preet and others



Present : Mr.K.L. Kohli, Advocate
for the petitioner.



By way of filing of the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., petitioner – Rupinder Kaur seeks quashing of order dated

20.4.2017 passed by the trial Court vide which her complaint under

Section 313 IPC read with Section 114 and Section 315 IPC had been

dismissed as well as order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Chandigarh dated 11.5.2018 vide which the revision petition dated

4.7.2017 had been dismissed, further craving for issuance of a direction

that complaint be referred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for

1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -2-

further inquiry.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant –

petitioner Rupinder Kaur had brought a complaint against her daughter-

in-law – Rupinder Kaur @ Preet, daughters’-in-law father Harjit Singh

and mother Paramjit Kaur on the allegations of Rupinder Kaur @ Preet

voluntarily causing miscarriage without consent with an intent to

prevent child being born alive in connivance with her parents i.e. father

Harjit Singh and mother Paramjit Kaur. After filing of the complaint in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, the complainant

led evidence. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint with the

following observations contained in paras No.8 to 11, which are being

reproduced as under:

8. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, this

Court is of the considered view that the complainant has

failed to prima facie show that accused persons have

committed offence punishable under Section 313 read with

Section 114 of IPC. Firstly, as per own averments of the

complainant in her deposition that the abortion had taken

place at Village Sunam, Punjab. Meaning thereby this Court

does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present

complaint as per the requirement of Section 177 Cr.P.C.

9. Section 177 of Cr.P.C. provides:-

“Section 177 Cr.P.C.:- ordinary place of

inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinary be

inquired into and tried by a court within whose local

jurisdiction it was committed”.

2 of 7
13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -3-

10. According to the Section 177 Cr.P.C. every offence

shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court

within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Meaning

thereby to invoke the jurisdiction of Court in Chandigarh

the offence should have been committed within the

territorial jurisdiction of this Court. But in the present case,

the offence took place at Sunam and not at Chandigarh.

Also the complainant did not examine the Doctor who got

conducted the miscarriage of the child of accused no. 1.

The evidence of CW3 Mangla Dogra and CW2 Dr.

Sangeeta Singh is not of any help to the complainant

because Dr. Mangla Dogra disclose the fact of pregnancy

of accused no. 1 and Dr. Sangeeta deposed that on

10.11.2012 accused no. 1 Rupinder came to her for check-

up. Moreover, if we go by the language of Section 313 IPC

it provides consent of the women i.e. the lady who is

pregnant. The complainant does not have locus standi to

file present complaint. In considered view of this Court,

there is no sufficient prima facie material for summoning of

accused no. 1 to 3.

11. Prima facie there is no evidence on record against the

accused no. 1 Rupinder Kaur. Hence, the present complaint

is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room

after due compliance.

3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -4-

The complainant felt aggrieved by the said order passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and challenged the

same by way of filing a revision petition in the Court of Sessions, which

was assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated

11.5.2018 dismissed the revision petition. The relevant part of that order

is contained in para No.4, which is reproduced as under:

4. After perusal of the case file and after hearing ld.

Counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view

that ld. Trial court has decided the matter in a fair and

justified manner and no interference is required to be made

in the said order. It is admitted fact that relations between

the parties is strained and complainant has got registered

FIR No.225 dt. 14.6.2013 under Section

452/342.323/506/34 IPC against respondent no.1 and

respondent no.1 has also got registered an FIR No.41 dt.

24.2.2013 u/s 406/498A IPC against the complainant and

her son. Apart from this, another petition has been filed by

respondent no.1 against her husband Shivjeet Singh for

maintenance. It is the case of the complainant that

complainant had left the home on 6.5.2011 in company of

respondents no.2 3 and stayed there upto 24.10.2012 and

during her stay at Village Chhajli, the respondents had

caused mis-carriage of the child by abortion. Admittedly,

the abortion was conducted at Sangrur. Therefore, the

court at Chandigarh does not have jurisdiction to try this

4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -5-

complaint, because as per Section177 Cr.P.C. every offence

shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the court

within whose jurisdiction, it was committed and as such the

court at Sangrur has territorial jurisdiction to try this

complaint. Even seen from another angle, Section 313 IPC

reads as under:-

Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent.–

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding

section without the consent of the woman, whether the

woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with

2*[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years, and

shall also be liable to fine.

However, woman referred to in that Section is the

lady who is pregnant. It does not refer to mother-in-law or

father. As such, the complainant neither has a locus-standi

to file present complaint nor has a prima-facie case.

Still feeling dissatisfied, the complainant has knocked at the

door of this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482


I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides

going through the record.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with inherent powers of the High

Court providing that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or

affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may

5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -6-

be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent

abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of


The orders passed by the Courts below are well reasoned

ones, based upon proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence and

correct interpretation of law. The Courts below have exercised the

jurisdiction vested in them in a proper and judicious manner and it is

certainly not a case of exercising jurisdiction not vested in the Courts or

exercising it in a wrong or erroneous manner. By way of filing the

present petition, the petitioner has raked up certain contentions on merits

including the jurisdiction point but those cannot be gone into at this

stage. The limited concern of this Court is to see that there is no abuse of

process of Court and to pass order to secure ends of justice. This Court

is not to reappraise the evidence and go into the merits of the case in

depth, which has already been done by the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in FIR

No.41 dated 24.2.2013, under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station

Chhajli, the present petitioner and her husband have since been

acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam. May it be

so. However, this judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner

because the controversy involved in the two cases is quite different and

distinct. Similarly the judgment State of M.P. Versus Suresh Kaushal

and another, (2003) 11 SCC 126 referred to by learned counsel for the

petitioner is not helpful to the petitioner due to different facts and

circumstances and the context in which such observations have been


6 of 7
13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::
CRM-M-28267-2018 -7-

The petition being without merit stands dismissed


31.7.2018 JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:02:49 :::

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