In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the jurisdictional aspects of trials under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, rendered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, affirms that a trial can be held at the place where the first wife permanently resides after the commission of the alleged offence.
Background of the Case
The case in question, Application U/S 482 No. 9341 of 2024, involved the applicant Inder Alias Lala and the opposite party, the State of Uttar Pradesh, along with the complainant Sudesh. The complainant accused Inder of committing offences under Sections 494 (marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The complaint was lodged in Ghaziabad.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal contention revolved around the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court to entertain the complaint. The applicant, represented by counsel Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, argued that the trial should be conducted in Delhi where the couple resided after their marriage, as per Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These sections generally mandate that offences should be tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction they were committed.
Court’s Decision on Jurisdiction
In his deliberation, Justice Shamshery referenced Section 182(2) of the CrPC, which provides that offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC can be tried by a court within the jurisdiction where the offence was committed or where the spouse from the first marriage resides permanently after the offence. The complainant, Sudesh, had been residing in Ghaziabad for several years post-separation from the applicant, which established her permanent residence in the district.
The court also took into account several documents, including an application filed by the applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage, and a settlement agreement, both of which listed Sudesh’s address in Ghaziabad.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Shamshery highlighted the material evidence presented, such as the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC, which supported the complainant’s claims. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383, reinforcing the sufficiency of grounds to proceed with the trial.
The court concluded that the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the applicant lacked merit, emphasizing that the complainant’s permanent residence in Ghaziabad post-commission of the offence validated the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court.
Conclusion
The application to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceedings was rejected. This judgment reinforces the legal provision allowing trials for offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC to be conducted in the jurisdiction where the first spouse resides permanently after the alleged offence.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 9341 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
– Applicant: Inder Alias Lala
– Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudesh
– Counsel for Applicant: Ashutosh Kumar Shukla
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
– Date of Judgment: July 8, 2024
– Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:109913
