Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for dowry harassment filed in Dhanbad. The court rejected the jurisdiction challenge, noting the alleged occurrence on 05.11.2008 took place within Dhanbad.
The petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is dismissed. Factual grounds are deferred to the trial court.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 208 of 2010
----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners: Ms. Kumari Rashmi For the State: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P For O.P.No.2: Ms. Jashodhara Tripathy
06/13.05.2019 The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 2144 of 2008 whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC has been taken against the petitioners.
2
Jharkhand, much less in Dhanbad, and as such the present complaint is not maintainable in the Court at Dhanbad. It is further submitted that on perusal of the statements made by one or the other witnesses, it would appear that one of the witnesses has stated that the alleged demand of dowry was made on a date even before the marriage. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it would be evident that most of the witnesses have stated that 3-4 persons came to Dhanbad. However, they have not specifically stated about the petitioner No.3. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose against him at Dhanbad. Even if it is assumed that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint are correct, no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners. The present criminal proceeding being an abuse of the process of the Court is liable to be quashed.
3
enquiry witness, who supported the alleged occurrence of 05.11.2008. Since the complaint, S.A of the complainant and the statements of the enquiry witnesses sufficiently disclose the offence, which was committed at Dhanbad, the Court at Dhanbad rightly took cognizance under Sections 498(A)/34 IPC against the petitioners in the said case.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court at Dhanbad has territorial jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Section 498-A IPC given the alleged facts.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2012)Referred¶25
Shahda Bano
Gulam Wazid Ansari @ Tunna
Gulam Ghause Ansari @ Bhola Jariwala
Gulam Mohammad Ansari @ Guddu
The State of Jharkhand
Abdul Hakim Ansari
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
