Sandeep Yadav And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

The applicants have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') for seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 28.06.2013 as well as summoning order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, in Criminal Case No.2514 of 2013, State vs. Sandeep Yadav and others, under Sections 498-A, 365, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that respondent-3 Yogendra Yadav submitted a complaint before the CJM, Sivan (Bihar) against the present applicants. As per the direction of the court the case was registered at Police Station Nautan, Bihar as FIR No. 115 of 2011 on 08.11.2011. As per the direction of the S.S.P. Nautan the documents were sent to S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar for inquiry; thereafter FIR No. Nil of 2012, was registered at Police Station Kashipur.

After the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498-A, 365, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicants. Accordingly Addl. CJM, Kashipur summoned the accused on 14.08.2013 under the above offences.

The first question raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is that Addl. CJM, Kashipur has no jurisdiction to try the case against the present applicants. Since the cause of action as per the complaint filed by respondent no. 3 took place at Bihar, hence the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. is bad in law.

As regards the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that all occurrences took place at Nautan, (Bihar) and not at Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per the paragraph no. 9 of the complaint, it is clear that on 16.09.2011 the informant along with other persons reached at Kashipur where the accused were present; the informant enquired about his sister, but the accused had kept silent about it; after opening the room of his sister Meera it was found that her bangles and hair were found there. Apart from that Sandeep Yadav, who is the husband of Meera has sent an application to S.O. Kashipur regarding the missing of his wife on 14.09.2011, and the accused Raghuveer Yadav has also submitted an application to S.O. Kashipur on 30.09.2011 about the missing of his daughter-in-law.

From the perusal of the above information dated 14.09.2011 and 30.09.2011, it is clear that Meera was living at Kashipur with the accused before 14.09.2011.

Since Meera was living at Kashipur before 14.09.2011, hence, the Kashipur Police had rightly lodged the FIR and investigated the matter; I have also came to this conclusion that the Kashipur Police had a power to investigate the matter, as per law.

As regards the summoning order dated 14.08.2013 is concerned, from the perusal of the summoning order dated 14.08.2013, it is clear that the Addl. CJM, Kashipur summoned the applicants (accused) only on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the I.O.; she did not peruse the evidence collected during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she also did not apply her mind whether any prima facie case is made out against the present applicants or not.

In these circumstances, the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally and the summoning order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, in Criminal Case No.2514 of 2013, State vs. Sandeep Yadav and others, under Sections 498-A, 365, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicants, is hereby set aside.

The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order, as per law, within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of this order.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court within a period of two days.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.