//
you're reading...
legal issues

whether the learned Magistrate at Patiala had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to issue summons on the basis thereof.

The Phuara Chowk (lit. the Fountain Crossing) ...

Image via Wikipedia

 1

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6269 OF 2009

Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners 

 Vs.

Mala Gupta ... Respondent

 J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the 

judgment and order dated 28th July, 2009, passed by the 

 2

learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 

dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 482 of 

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to 

as "Cr.P.C.", for quashing of order dated 2nd July, 2009, 

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, as 

also the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial 

Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, on 5th August, 2008.

2. The respondent herein, Mala Gupta, filed a complaint 

against the petitioners, who are her father and mother-in-

law, under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 

hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.". On being satisfied 

that a prima facie case to go to trial had been made out, 

the learned Magistrate issued process against the 

petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a 

revision petition against the summoning order, which was 

dismissed on 2nd July, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioners 

 3

filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing 

of the proceedings arising out of the complaint under 

Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C.

3. The main ground taken in the said petition was that the 

Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to entertain the 

complaint since no part of the cause of action for the same 

had arisen within its jurisdiction. On a construction of 

the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., both the learned 

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and the High Court, 

dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2008, 

and the Crl. Misc. Case No.19996-M of 2009. As indicated 

hereinabove, the High Court also dismissed the petitioners' 

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order 

dated 28th July, 2009.

 4

4. The only point for consideration in this case is whether 

the learned Magistrate at Patiala had jurisdiction to 

entertain the complaint and to issue summons on the basis 

thereof.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both 

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and the High 

Court misconstrued the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. 

in holding that the complaint was maintainable, as no part 

of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of 

the Courts at Patiala. It was urged that the 

respondent/complainant had received back all her articles 

and personal effects and nothing remained to be handed over 

to the complainant at Patiala so as to give rise to a cause 

of action within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Patiala. 

Learned counsel urged that the complaint was wholly 

motivated and without basis and was liable to be quashed.

 5

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, 

Mala Gupta, submitted that the complaint itself contains a 

categorical statement that the dowry articles were to be 

returned at Patiala Court, thus attracting the provisions of 

Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that at the 

stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate was only required 

to see whether there was any material in the complaint to 

proceed against the accused and the learned Magistrate had 

rightly observed that documents produced on behalf of the 

accused would be considered at the time of trial. 

7. In the ultimate analysis, what emerges from the 

submissions of the parties is that during the trial the 

petitioners will have to disprove the complainant's case 

that part of the cause of action arose in Patiala where the 

dowry articles were to be returned to the complainant. As 

 6

it stands, the complaint does indicate that a part of the 

cause of action arose in Patiala, thus attracting the 

provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. The High Court has 

quite rightly observed that on a bare perusal of the 

complaint, the Patiala Court has jurisdiction to entertain 

the complaint. The decisions cited on behalf of the 

petitioners are not of much help to the petitioners' case. 

In Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and 

Others, [(2009) 7 SCC 712], this Court held that when on 

investigation it was found that no case of cheating or 

criminal breach of trust had been made out against the 

accused, the High Court should have exercised its 

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the 

proceedings. In the said case the issue was whether a prima 

facie case had been made out against the accused. The 

situation in this case is different, since the complaint 

 7

itself makes out a prima facie case to go to trial. The 

petitioners' case does not fall within any of the 

circumstances indicated by this Court in paragraph 102 of 

its judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, [(1992) 

Supp.1 SCC 335]. The other judgments cited are on the same 

lines and do not require our attention separately.

8. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the 

judgment of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave 

Petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

 ...............................................................J.

 (ALTAMAS KABIR)

 ...............................................................J.

 (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI

DATED: 07.09.2011

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: