Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


MOHD.JAKIR & ORS. v STATE & ORS. - CRLR Case No. 699 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2268 (27 April 2007)


Mohd. Jakir & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another



S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.699/2006.

(Mohd. Jakir & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another)

April 27th , 2007



Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas ___________________________________

Mr. Vishal Sharma for the petitioner.

Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P.

Mr. Harish Purohit for the non-petitioner.


By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.05.2006 whereby the trial Magistrate (Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate,

Nagaur) framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.411/2005.

According to facts of the case set out in the petition, a complaint was presented before the Police Station, Nagaur stating therein that the


Mohd. Jakir & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another complainant was married to the petitioner Mohd. Jakir as per muslim law.

The complainant stated that life was going on comfortably at her matrimonial home but, after June 2005 the petitioners started harassing her and raised demands of dowry. Upon this complaint, FIR was registered and investigation took place.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on 27.09.2005, during the investigation, the complainant alongwith her brother submitted a letter to the Police Station, Nagaur by which the complainant withdrew the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. As a result of the submission of such application by the complainant, the police gave FR on 30.09.2005. But, thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition before the

Court upon which the trial Court recorded statement of the complainant and, after recording statements of two other witnesses, allowed the protest petition and took cognizance of offences under Section 498A and 406, I.P.C. against the petitioners. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence against the petitioners for cruelty or breach of trust.

However, there was dispute in between the parties because the complainant is not willing to live with her husband. It is submitted that the complainant is posted at the PMO office, Government Hospital, Nagaur. According to the petitioners, the dispute arose when the petitioner husband insisted upon his wife to join him during vacation time; but, the complainant refused to come to her matrimonial home at Udaipur. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court, treating the letter of compromise as a forged document, summoned the petitioners. It is contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the disputed letter bore signature of the complainant.


Mohd. Jakir & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another

During the course of arguments, another point is raised by the petitioners that they are living at Udaipur and no cause of action arose at

Nagaur, therefore, there is no jurisdiction vested in the Court at Nagaur to take cognizance against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of the Court towards judgment of this Court, reported in 2007(1) W.L.C. 53, and contended that there is no jurisdiction vested in the

Court at Nagaur in the matter to take cognizance against the petitioners who are residing at Udaipur.

Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the order impugned. It is contended by him that there is sufficient evidence on record and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the marriage was solemnised at

Nagaur and entrustment of the dowry articles was made at Nagaur. It is contended by learned counsel for the non-petitioner that petitioner No.1 repeatedly pressed the complainant for her transfer to Udaipur and on telephone also, the complainant was threatened by petitioner No.1. It is submitted that as and when the complainant went to her in-laws' house at

Udaipur she was harassed and treated cruelly.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that there is no jurisdiction left with the Nagaur Court because it is not disputed by the petitioners that the complainant is working at Nagaur; the submission with regard to quashing the charge on the ground that earlier compromise was arrived at and the same was presented before the investigating officer is baseless.


Mohd. Jakir & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another

I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioners. There is sufficient evidence for framing charge against the petitioners and, therefore, the order of the trial Court cannot be found fault with. In the circumstance, there is no ground for interference in the matter in this revision petition.

The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.