Abdul Majid and Others vs Session Judge and Others

S.N. Saxena, J.—Heard the learned Counsel and also perused the evidence on record.

The Petitioners have been summoned to face trial u/s 498A. I.P.C. on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Sabra against her husband Abdul Majid and four others vide Annexure 1 to the petition, which is a copy of the complaint. Annexures 2 to 4 are the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate before summoning the Petitioners. I have gone through the statements and find that the learned Magistrate rightly arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for summoning the Petitioners to face the trial. The said statements are uncrossed statements on oath and at this stage. I find no good reasons to hold that they are not worth reliance for the purpose of summoning the Petitioners. Finally, the truthfulness of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses shall be decided during trial after they are put to the test of the cross-examination, but on the basis of conjectures and surmises, these cannot be discarded at this stage.

Learned Counsel contended that the court at Hardwar had got no jurisdiction to try the Petitioners and on this ground alone, the proceedings were liable to be quashed. The determination of this question rests upon the questions of fact which cannot be decided in this petition. A direction, however, can be given to the learned Magistrate to decide the question of jurisdiction as well while trying the accused persons for the aforesaid offence.

There is another remedy also available to the Petitioners under Sub-section (2) of Section 245, Code of Criminal Procedure and if so advised, the same may be availed.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission with the direction to the trial Magistrate to decide the question of jurisdiction and also the prayer, if any made under Sub-section (2) of Section 245, Code of Criminal Procedure.