The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a chargesheet based on lack of jurisdiction. The court held that cause of action arose in Hathras, distinguishing Supreme Court precedents where liability was elsewhere.
Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; jurisdiction objection rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10635 of 2006 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mrs.Vatsala
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet submitted in Case Crime No.C-20 of 2006, under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Mahamaya Nagar now registered as Case No.1529 of 2006 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
This petition has been filed on the ground that district Hathras was not having the jurisdiction and learned trial court wrongly acquired the jurisdiction.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has cited the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, LAWS (SC)-2004-8-108 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is an inevitable conclusion that cause of action only arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
The facts of the present case bit different and as per statement of prosecutrix, the cause of action has also arisen in district Hathras. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the FIR itself, it has been stated that prosecutrix was left in district Hathras by the husband as well as brother of husband Devendra Singh and as such it cannot be said that cause of action did not arise in district Hathras and contention of learned counsel for the applicants that district Hathras is having no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, is not tenable.
This is only ground that has been pressed before this Court and this Court does not find any ground for indulgence and, accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2018/Ajeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras had jurisdiction to try the case after cause of action arose in district Hathras.
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging jurisdiction is liable to be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, LAWS (SC)-2004-8-108Distinguished¶7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Singh & Others
State Of U.P.
Abhai Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
