IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 115/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Shobhit Saxena & Others …….Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & Another ……Respondents Mr. Siddartha Sah, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2. 25th November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been advanced to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 5/2004, Smt. Preeti Saxena v. Shobhit Saxena and 2 Others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In the said trial, vide the impugned cognizance order dated 7.6.2004, Shobhit Saxena (husband), Dharmatma Sahai Saxena (father-in-law) Smt. Rajkumari Saxena (mother-in- law), resident of Kanpur city in Uttar Pradesh have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. 2. The background facts are that Smt. Preeti Saxena was espoused with Shobhit Saxena on 22.11.2002. After blissfully passing a couple of months, the differences cropped up between the two families on the question of dowry. Smt. Preeti Saxena became the victim of insatiable attitude of her husband and parents-in-law. Ultimately, she left her matrimonial home at Kashipur on 12.1.2004 to dwell in her native home and since then she has been residing there. Having arrived at Kashipur, just after four days, she lodged an FIR on 17.1.2004 under Section 323, 498A, 506 IPC against her husband and parents-in-law. The matter was investigated 2 and the chargesheet was submitted, which was challenged here by way of filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC by Shobhit Saxena and his parents. It has been apprised that the said petition was dismissed by this Court and now trial in the said matter is proceeding before the court below. 3. Smt. Preeti Saxena lodged the impugned complaint for the offence of Section 406 IPC with the allegations that accused persons have criminally misappropriated her stridhan, gifts and cash, which were offered to her in the wedding. So, they should be tried for the offence of Section 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, took cognizance of the matter on 7.6.2004 asking the applicants petitioners to stand trial as stated above. The accused persons filed a protest petition, which was dismissed by the very court of Magistrate on 7.12.2004, and revision no. 9/2005 preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the court of Sessions on 27.10.2005. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon a precedent delivered in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 177 and 178 CrPC. In that case, another precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, reported in 1997 SCC (Criminal) 673, has also been referred to. The Court was of the view that in case of Section 498A, 506, 323 IPC, where there was no whisper in the complaint that any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence was made at the place where the wife is residing after leaving the house of her husband, then the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place of 3 dwelling of the wife is not competent to try the case relating to the allegations of the offences stated hereinabove. 5. In the instant case, the complaint is not pertaining to the offences under Section 323, 498A & 506 IPC because the same has already been adjudicated in dismissal by this Court on a petition filed by Shobhit Saxena & other accused with the result that the trial is being proceeded at Kashipur court. The present controversy pertains to Section 406 IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust. In this regard, Section 181(4) of the CrPC envisages that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. Although the criminal misappropriation of the stridhan which has been listed in detail at the end of the complaint is being done at Kanpur, but this property naturally might have been received at the time of marriage at Kashipur and the same is also being required to be returned at Kashipur, which is the natural place of dwelling of a woman after her expulsion from her in-laws’ house. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that at the time of lodging the FIR on 17.1.2004 for the alleged offences of Section 323, 498A & 506 IPC against the applicants, Smt. Preeti Saxena, if aggrieved due to criminal misappropriation of her stridhan, as stated in her impugned complaint, must have made these allegations in that FIR, which she lodged earlier just four months prior to lodging of the instant complaint because her grievance (if any) against the applicants was cumulative. So, she cannot enjoy liberty to file different FIRs or different complaints for every alleged offence. He has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex 4 Court rendered in case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others and other connected matters, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, wherein at paragraph 19, it has been held as under: “The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one and more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.” 7. The above argument of the learned Counsel is quite convincing. But here the constraint is that chargesheet has been submitted in that case which is under trial before the court of Magistrate. However, Smt. Preeti Saxena cannot be permitted to file a separate complaint, which amounts to a separate criminal trial, and to compel her husband and parents-in-law to put their attendance separately in each case. She should have made that allegation in the FIR, which she lodged earlier on 17.1.2004, but she did not do so. But still there is a redress during trial, if she deposes regarding the criminal misappropriation of her stridhan by the accused 5 persons, then she can invoke the powers of the Magistrate under Section 319 CrPC asking the accused persons to face the trial conjointly for the offence of Section 406 IPC as well. 8. Attention of this Court was drawn towards the order of cognizance dated 7.6.2004. It appears that learned Magistrate did not mention the grounds of his satisfaction in detail for taking the cognizance. Although the said order is short one, but every time it is not the necessity of the law to pass a detailed order. All that is needed is the satisfaction of the Magistrate on the basis of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and the other evidence produced before him for taking cognizance, which the learned Magistrate has done in the instant case. 9. Hence, the impugned order of cognizance, although not bad, but for the reasons stated above, is liable to be quashed. 10. Consequently, the order of cognizance dated 7.6.2004 as well as the complaint case no. 532/2004 is hereby quashed. But it is made clear that Smt. Preeti Saxena will be at liberty to depose and raise her allegations pertaining to Section 406 IPC in that criminal case which is being tried against her husband and parents-in-law for the offences of Section 323, 498A and 506 IPC. If she makes the allegations there on oath during the course of recording her evidence, then the Magistrate will be at liberty to exercise his powers under Section 319 CrPC asking the accused persons to stand trial conjointly with other penal offences, if he deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. 6 12. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 25.11.2011 Prabodh