IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 76 of 2006 Balbir Singh. ………. Petitioner. Versus Smt. Harjeet Kaur and others. ..…. Respondents Present : Sri Gopal Krishna, Advocate for petitioner. Sri. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. H.C. Lohani, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this Criminal Misc. Application, petitioner has prayed to quash the cognizance order dated 26.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Case no. 616 of 2005 Harjeet Kaur Vs. Balbir Singh and others. The said order was passed by the learned Magistrate asking Balbir Singh and Paramjeet Kaur to stand trial for the offence 494, 504, 506 IPC. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that complainant Harjeet Kaur was espoused with Balbir Singh on 15.06.1984 as per Hindu Rituals. For quite a number of years, the couple passed a happy matrimonial life but later when Harjeet Kaur could not conceive a baby the attitude of Balbir Singh turned into hostility and this conduct went to the extent that Balbir Singh became indulged in illicit relations with other women. Besides, as alleged he used to invite other persons to his home and ask his wife (complainant) Harjeet Kaur to submit herself before his friends, when resisted she was expelled from her husband’s house and Balbir Singh without taking any divorce from his legally wedded wife complainant Harjeet Kaur, wedded with respondent no. no. 2 2 Paramjeet Kaur in Moradabad. It is pertinent to mention that Balbir Singh is a Junior Engineer, his place of posting is at Moradabad, so he resides there now along with his second wife Paramjeet Kaur. 3. Before eight days of filing of the complaint dated 08.09.2005, she went to the residence of Balbir Singh along with her brothers where it was noticed that Balbir Singh was residing along with Paramjeet Kaur. Complainant expressed her displeasure upon this attitude, then the latter abused Harjeet Kaur (complainant) and her brothers (witnesses). The complainant was beaten and extending threat to kill her. She was pushed away from home. Feeling helpless, complainant returned along with her brothers and now, residing in her father’s house within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She filed complaint for offence under section 494, 495, 496, 504, 506 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate and learned Magistrate, after recording her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and her two witnesses Joga Singh and Palvindra Singh under section 202 Cr.P.C., passed the order of cognizance on 26.10.2005 as aforestated. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Balbir Singh is residing at Moradabad. Even if, the allegations stated in the complaint are taken to be true, ex parte against Paramjeet Kaur and Balbir Singh, albeit the incident of beating as well as pushing the complainant outside the house has been done in the territorial jurisdiction of Moradabad court’s. So the court of Kashipur lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. This contention has been rebutted by learned counsel for the complainant, by arguing that Harjeet Kaur helplessly residing in her parents’ house at Jaspur so the consequences of second marriage of Balbir Singh 3 with Paramjeet Kaur are ensuing of making Harjeet Kaur to live with her parents at Jaspur. The entire impact of the second marriage of Balbir Singh is ensuing within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Jaspur. 5. Similar situation was dealt with by Allahabad High Court in the case of Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1994 (31) ACC 809. In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that it is well established rule that procedural law should be interpreted in the manner so as to promote cause of justice and not in the manner it may defeat it. In that case too, wife, being an aggrieved person due to re- marriage of husband in her life time, living in Etawah and she filed complaint under section 494 IPC in Etawah Court while husband was living in Firozabad. The Allahabad High Court was of the view that wife can legally file compliant at the place of her residence. If the otherwise view is taken, it shall cause great hardship as she may not be able to prosecute the complainant at the place of actual marriage or at the place where he resided and the unscrupulous husband cannot be allowed to defeat her legal right to file complaint at the place of her normal residence. This Court too agrees with the view advanced by the Allahabad High Court. 6. So in view of the above, this petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. The order of cognizance is sustained. However, as regards to offence under section 504, 506 IPC is concerned, it will be open for the trial court to test its veracity during the trial. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.09.2011 SKS