This criminal revision petition challenged a revision order regarding jurisdiction in a dowry case. The court held no ground for interference was made out and dismissed the petition.
Dismissed the criminal revision petition.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1977/2011
Meenu S/o Late Shri Latifa B/c Musalman, R/o Near Dauji Temple, Gopalpura, in Front of Kabristan, Shamsabad, District Agra.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Jain Adv.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
12/01/2018
Defect pointed by the office is waived.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 24.02.2010.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation of the case, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. On a protest petition filed by respondent No.2, cognizance was taken by the
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1977/2011]
Magistrate. Petitioner moved an application under Section 177 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide order dated 18.06.2009, the said application was allowed by the Magistrate and complainant was directed to present the complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction. On a revision petition filed by the respondent No.2, order passed by the Magistrate was set aside by the Court of Revision vide order dated 24.02.2010. Court of Revision while allowing the revision petition has held that as per the allegations levelled by the complainant, she had been left at Badi by her husband and while leaving, the dowry demand was again reiterated and complainant was told by the petitioner that he would not keep her in the matrimonial home till his demand was met. It is also the case of the complainant that after giving beatings to her, she had been left at Badi. Petitioner had raised demand of a Motor Cycle and Rs. 25,000/- in cash. It was further the case of the complainant that the dowry articles had been given at Badi. In these circumstances, the Learned Court of Revision rightly held that the Court at Badi has the jurisdiction to try the offence.
No ground for interference by this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
S.Kumawat/D-15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court's revisional jurisdiction ought to be exercised to interfere with the Magistrate's order regarding the complaint under 406 and 498A IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Meenu
State of Rajasthan
Rihana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
