Pooran Singh Sikarwar And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Both the petitions are arising out of pending of criminal proceeding against all the applicants in R.T. No.14664/2010 before the Court of JMFC,

Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 493, 420, 417 of IPC and under Section 3 read with 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, both the

petitions are being decided by this common order.

Facts giving rise to both the petitions, in short, are that applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar and Abhishek Singh Sikarwar (applicant of M.Cr.C.

No.13310/2012) are the sons of Pooran Singh Sikarwar and Smt. Uma Sikarwar (applicants of M.Cr.C. No.7635/2011). Abhimanyu Sikarwar and

respondent No.2-Swati Tomar were known to each other and agreed to marry with each other. All the applicants agreed for the marriage between

Abhimanyu Sikarwar and Swati Tomar. Engagement ceremony was held on 10/05/2009 in Hotel Amar Vilas, A.B. Road, Indore. Applicant-

Abhimanyu Sikarwar and respondent No.2-Swati Tomar, both, were working in Mumbai and there they developed friendship, however, later on after

engagement when mother-father of respondent No.2-Swati Tomar went to fixed the date of marriage, then applicants demanded Rs.35 lakh.

Applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar, on the pretext of marriage, developed physical relationship with respondent No.2-Swati Tomar. She became

pregnant, but, later on all the applicants of both the petitions denied for marriage. Applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar managed to abort fetus, then

respondent No.2-Swati Tomar made a report to Police and later on filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, Bhopal

against all the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 493, 420, 417 of IPC and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Learned Court of JMFC vide order dated 08/11/2010 registered the complaint as R.T. No.14664/2010 and issued bailable warrant of Rs.500/-

against applicants for presence on the applicants on 29/11/2010 before the Court of JMFC. Against that order, applicants-Pooran Singh Sikarwar and

Smt. Umar Sikarwar preferred a criminal revision registered as Criminal revision No.82/2011 which has been dismissed vide order dated 29/04/2011.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Courts below, applicants Pooran Singh Sikarwar, Smt. Umar Sikarwar have filed petition

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. registered as M.Cr.C. No.7635/2011 and applicants-Abhimanyu Sikarwar and Abhishek Singh Sikarwar have filed

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. registered as M.Cr.C. No.13310/2012 before this Court. In both the petitions the applicants pray to quash the

criminal proceeding initiated through private complaint filed by respondent-Swati Tomar registered as R.T. No.14664/2010 on the ground that the

order passed by the trial Court for registration of complaint is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal because the Court of Bhopal is not having any

jurisdiction for taking cognizance against the applicants. All the engagement ceremony held at Indore and applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar and

respondent No.2-Swati Tomar developed physical relationship at Mumbai where both were working. All remaining applicants lived at Indore. Only

father of respondent-Swati Tomar lived in Bhopal working in Police Department, on that count respondent No.2-Swati Tomar filed a complaint before

the JMFC, Bhopal. Apparently the Court of JMFC, Bhopal has no jurisdiction to try such offence because no cause of action has been taken in the

territorial jurisdiction at Bhopal for the offence under Sections 493, 420, 417 of IPC. No ingredients of Section 420 and 417 of IPC are made out. With

an ulterior motive to harass the applicants, respondent No.2-Swati Tomar filed a complaint against the applicants at Bhopal and also raised a ground

that there was no ingredients of any of the offence found in the complaint as well as in the evidence produced by the respondent-Swati Tomar. The

order of taking cognizance is bad in law and without jurisdiction, therefore, pray to quash and set aside the complaint.

None appears for respondent No.2-Swati Tomar.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 08/11/2010 passed by the Court of JMFC, Bhopal.

The applicants neither appeared before the Court of JMFC nor filed an application through Advocate about the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhopal,

This fact has been raised first time before this Court about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of JMFC. This objection of jurisdiction should have

first raised before the trial Court.

Considered the point that whether there is material available on record to proceed further against the applicants. The applicants have filed copy of

the complaint as well as statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court.

Respondent No.2-Swati Tomar categorically stated that applicant-Abhimanyu proposed her and took consent of marriage from her parents and

engagement ceremony was held on 10/05/2009. On the pretext of marriage, applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar procured her consent and developed

physical relations with her and as a result she became pregnant, but, later on applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar managed for abortion and thereafter

denied for marriage. All these facts, prima facie, show that applicant-Abhimanyu Sikarwar, on the pretext of marriage, succeeded to receive the

consent from respondent No.2-Swati Tomar to make physical relationship and later on denied for marriage. Respondent No.2-Swati Tomar consented

for physical relationship on misrepresentation and misconceive. No doubt, prima facie ingredients of Section 375 of IPC is present. No doubt, learned

Court of JMFC did not register the complaint for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, however, it does not make any difference because if the

Court of JMFC found sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statement of the complainant on oath, Court can proceed with further and

issue process against the applicants. The applicants are free to raise an objection of jurisdiction before the trial Court after their appearance before the

Court of JMFC. All the applicants have not yet appeared before the Court of JMFC since 2010. There is no ground to interefere in the impugned

order by invoking the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The applicants of both the petitions are directed to appear before the

trial Court within a month.

With the aforesaid observations, both these petitions are devoid of substance and the same are hereby dismissed.

Consequently, all the interim applications pending for consideration are having rendered infructuous, therefore, the same are also dismissed. No

order as to cost.