Wanted

Here is the judgment..........

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1240 of 1999

1.Anil Sharma son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma,

Resident of House No. 1016 /14 Alwargate,Ajmer.

2.Shiv Nath son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma
3.Shiv Dutt son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma
4.Rajendra son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma
5.Suresh son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma
6.Bhagwan Devi wife of late Jeevan Lal Sharma
7.Anita wife of Shiv Dutt
8.Vineeta wife Suresh
9.Sunita wife Rajendra, R/o 101/6/14, Alwar Gate, Ajmer.
10.Laxmi Narayan Sharma
11.Tulsi Devi wife Laxmi Narayan Sharma.
R/o , 211/40, Balupura Road, Vivek Vihar Colony,Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer State of Rajasthan.

….. Applicants-Accused.

Vs.

1.State of U.P.

2.The Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Agra.

3.Smt. Mamta Sharma D/o R.C.C. Sharma
R/o 31/32/7N/3, Laxmi Puram Rajpur Chauki, Agra.

…… Informant-Opp. Parties Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.

1.According to the prosecution version, Opp. Party No. 3 informant Smt. Mamta Sharma was married to applicant no.1 Anil Sharma of Ajmer on 3.3.1995 and she was cordially treated for about two and a half month by her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, she came to Agra to her parents from where on her return to her in laws as alleged, she found her husband and in laws quite indifferent to her, they raised demands of cash of Rs. 50,000/-, a T.V., a V.C.R. and a Scooter from her and started coercing her to fulfil their
demands. Her husband his, mother Bhagwan Devi applicant no. 6, brothers
applicant Nos. 3,4,5 and 2 Shiv Dutt, Suresh , Rajendra and Shiv Nath, applicant Nos. 7,8 & 9 Anita Vinita and Sunita , wives of Shiv Dutt, Suresh and Rajendra respectively and husband’s sister applicant no. 11 Tulsi Devi and her husband applicant no.10 Luxmi Narain used to beat and harass her. It is also alleged that On 8.2.1997, all the accused made an abortive bid to kill her by sprinkling oil. Thereafter, they all turned her
out from their house. One Sri Mahesh Chandra Goel of Ajmer , one of the friends of the father of the complainant sent her by bus to Agra. Her parents alongwith other relatives, thereafter, went to Ajmer to her husband and in-laws to persuade them but in vain.

2.It is said that on 8.3.1998 , all the accused came to the house of the complainant at Agra at 7 O’clock in the morning and asked the father of the complainant to fulfil their demands so they could take the complainant, which led to a tussle between the accused and her father. The wives of her husband’s elder brothers bit her by the tooth and all the accused beat the complainant. She was rescued by Mohallawalas . She was taken to District Hospital,Agra where she was examined on her injuries, and thereafter she lodged a first information report of the incident on 8.3.1998at Police Station Rakabganj, Agra. The police investigated the case and in the result of investigation the police ( Criminal Case No. 17 of 1998) filed a charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 224 and 506 I.P.C. before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra who ordered issuance of summons against the applicants.

3.That is how the applicants have come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for termination of proceedings pending against them.

4.I have heard Sri Sahab Tiwari, advocate for the applicants, Sri M.B. Singh, advocate for the Opp. Party No. 3 Smt. Mamta Sharma and Sri R.S. Maurya, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

5.The sequence of facts and circumstances as disclosed above, furnishes an
inescapable impression that the incident is said to have taken place at
Agra, has been introduced only with a view to sue the applicants at the
complainant’ s place in Agra. If we exclude this incident of Marpit, which
is said to have taken place at the house of the wife at Agra, the
jurisdiction would otherwise, lie at Ajmer because the wife was subjected to
cruelty and dowry demand at Ajmer, as has been clearly alleged, in the first
information report.

6.It is obvious and apparent in the circumstances, that the incident at the
house of wife at Agra is fictitious, because, it is not comprehensible that
other members of the in-laws family will travel down from Ajmer to Agra and
indulge in fisticuffs and physical assault. The obvious purpose for
introducing this incident is to provide jurisdiction to the Agra Court.

7.The counsel for the complainant referred to the injury report, which
furnishes prima-facie evidence about the occurrence having taken place and
about the wife having given a beating. The injury report by the Medical
Officer, District Hospital, Agra mentions the
following injuries: (1) Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 3 cm right side head , 8
cm above right ear. (2) Right contused Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 2 cm above right
shoulder.

(3) Multiple red abraded contusion 3 cm x 3cm front of right forearm in middle.

(4) Red contusion 3 cm x 3.5cm , left thigh upper part. (5) Complaint of
pain front & back of chest.

8.It will appear that all these injuries are of simple in nature, and in
these circumstances arising in the case, *mere existence of such simple
injuries on the person of the wife , cannot be considered sufficient
evidence for furnishing an inference, that the incident of this nature
alleged by the information wife , took place at her house*.

9.The whole story about the aforesaid incident of physical assault having
taken place at the house of wife at Agra is, in the circumstances,
manifestly forged and fabricated, and, as mentioned above, has been
introduced with an intention to provide jurisdiction to Agra Court.

10.There is also on record copy of the certificate of the railway authority
that the applicant no.1 husband was on duty on the day when the aforesaid
occurrence is said to have taken place at the house of the wife at Agra.

11.It may also be mentioned that the introduction of 10 other persons
besides the husband in the first information report, is itself indicative of
an intention on the part of the wife, to exert pressure on the husband, with
a view to subjugate him. It is difficult to visualise so many persons being
involved in harassing the wife and they seem to have been implicated with
the aforesaid ulterior motive.

12.The Supreme Court has itself warned on the tendency on behalf of married
lady in case of dowry demand to implicate other in-laws unnecessarily, only
with a view to coerce the husband into submission. Reference may be made in
this case to the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others,
2005 S.C.C. ( Crl.) 1473.

13.It becomes, therefore, clear that the wife has no qualms in implicating innocent persons and introducing false episode.

14.Since it has been held that no such incident of physical assault is likely to have taken place at Agra, the courts at Agra will have no jurisdiction to deal with the case and jurisdiction will lie in the court at Ajmer.
 
15.In the result, petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 17 of 1998 under Sections 498-A,224 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are terminated.

Dated: 06.04.2007