AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
Present petition, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in criminal complaint case no. 2429 of
2015 under section 498A IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is the plea of the petitioner that the mandatory procedure under section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed, as a consequence whereof an interim
order was granted on
08.2015, staying the further proceedings in the criminal case.
An application has been filed by respondent no. 2 seeking to vacate the stay order.
The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is absent. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the learned counsel has remained absent since he
has filed the counter affidavit. It is the further plea of the petitioner that the couple are residing together for the last three years, as per the instruction
received from his client. It appears that respondent no. 2 is no more interested to prosecute the matter further.
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 in
the case Vijay Dhanuka & ors. vs. Najima Mamtaj & ors., and made reference to para 12 of the judgment. It is his plea that accused no. 1 is
residing in Tripura, accused no. 2 is resident of State of Gujarat and accused no. 3 is resident of State of Bihar, therefore, an inquiry would have to be
held by the Magistrate before proceeding further in the matter.
On hearing learned counsel, I am of the view that appropriate interference is called for. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clear so
far as the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment ofV ijay Dhanuka (supra) has
held that an inquiry is mandatory in a case where the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who exercises his jurisdiction.
In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.02.2015 is hereby quashed. The
matter stands remitted to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar, who shall consider the case in terms of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex in the case Vijay Dhanuka (supra) and thereafter proceed in a manner, according to law.