# Inder @ Lala v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 537 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-07-08 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 9341 of 2024 - **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/inder-lala-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52232 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 177, 178, 182(2), 200, 202, 204 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1860 - Sections 494, 406 & 506: - Applications u/s 482 - criminal complainant - lodged by the wife of applicant (O.P. No. 2) against her husband - she alleged that applicant (husband) got married with another lady during her lifetime without any divorce and when confronted, he committed an offence u/s 506 IPC - St.ments recorded - summoning order issued - against present application filed - plea taken that complaint was filed within jurisdiction of District Ghaziabad, whereas they are residing at Delhi therefore court at district Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction in view of u/s 177 & 178 Cr.P.C. - court finds that, - complainant was residing at the given address at Ghaziabad District for last many years after being left by the applicant, - and application moved by the applicant u/section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, wherein address of the complainant is shown at Ghaziabad district - which reflect that complainant is permanently residing at the given address at Ghaziabad district - hence, court within its local jurisdiction, in present case i.e. in district Ghaziabad - hence, objection in regards to jurisdiction has not merit - and there are sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant - accordingly, present application is rejected. (Para - 9, 10, 11) Application Dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: Lalan kumar Singh Vs St. of Mah. (2022 SCC online SC 1383). ## Text 7 All. Inder @ Lala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 537 and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 29. The relations between the parties are not denied. As far as the merits of the allegations as mentioned in the complaint is concerned, the response from the parties have to be filed, so that the same is considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C cannot be allowed to short-circuit the proceedings under the provisions of D.V. Act. Further, there is a rich precedent in the issue that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The allegation of not providing protection, residence and compensation to upkeep the complainant and her minor child is certainly a matter to be looked into by the trial Court and for this, parties have to prove their respective case. This would, thus, not qualify as satisfaction of any of the guidelines laid down at para 102 of the Bhajan Lal's case (Supra). It is also not one of the rarest of rare cases for this Court to take notice and invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant on this front too, cannot convince this Court to decide in her favour. 30. The judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the applicant is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same would not come to her rescue. E. Conclusion 31. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble Madras High Court, this Court is of the considered view that the application made under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable. 32. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to take recourse as provided under law, if so desires. 33. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------- (2024) 7 ILRA 537 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Application U/S 482. No. 9341 of 2024 Inder @ Lala ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 177, 178, 182(2), 200, 202, 204 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1860 - Sections 494, 406 & 506: - Applications u/s 482 - criminal complainant - lodged by the wife of applicant (O.P. No. 2) against her husband - she alleged that applicant (husband) got married with another lady during her lifetime without any divorce and when confronted, he committed an offence u/s 506 IPC - St.ments recorded - summoning order issued - against present application filed - plea taken that complaint was filed within jurisdiction of District Ghaziabad, whereas they are residing at Delhi therefore court at district Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction in view of u/s 177 & 178 Cr.P.C. - court finds that, - complainant was residing at the given address at Ghaziabad District for last many years after being left by the applicant, - and application moved by the applicant u/section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, wherein address of the complainant is shown at Ghaziabad district - which reflect that complainant is permanently residing at the given address at Ghaziabad district - hence, court within its local jurisdiction, in present case i.e. in district Ghaziabad - hence, objection in regards to jurisdiction has not merit - and there are sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant - accordingly, present application is rejected. (Para - 9, 10, 11) Application Dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: Lalan kumar Singh Vs St. of Mah. (2022 SCC online SC 1383). (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing of a summoning order dated 3.3.2021 passed in complaint case no.278 of 2019 (Sudesh Vs. Inder @ Lala) under Sections 494, 406 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Tronica City, DistrictGhaziabad, pending before Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Fast Tact Court/Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, District-Ghaziabad as well as quashing of consequential proceedings. 3. Applicant before this Court is husband of O.P. No.2 (complainant). The complainant has lodged a criminal complaint that applicant has committed an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. that he got married during lifetime of complainant, without any divorce with her and when he was confronted, he committed an offence under Section 506 I.P.C. 4. Learned Trial Court after considering the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. passed an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby applicant was summoned for aforesaid offence. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the complaint was filed within jurisdiction of District Ghaziabad, whereas after marriage, complainant was residing along with applicant at Delhi, as such in view of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., Court at Distict Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction. Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereinafter : "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 - Place of inquiry or trial- (a)When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or 7 All. Smt. Kanchan Rawat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 539 (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 6. Above submissions are opposed by Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. that complainant is a resident of DistrictGhaziabad and she after being deserted was staying there only as such in view of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. as referred above, Court at District-Ghaziabad has jurisdiction to summon the applicant. 7. In order to consider rival submissions, I have carefully perused other relevant Sections i.e. Section 182 (2) Cr.P.C. also which states as under: "182. Offence committed by letters, etc.-(1) xxx (2) Any offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence." 8. I have carefully perused, material available along with present application that complainant was residing at the given address at District-Ghaziabad for last many years after being left by the applicant. 9. The Court also takes note of an application filed by applicant under provisions of Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage where, address of complainant is shown at District--Ghaziabad. Similarly in a settlement agreement also, same address has been mentioned, as such it is evident that complainant is permanently residing at the given address at District Ghaziabad, therefore, in view of Section 182 (2) of Cr.P.C. as referred above, Court within its local jurisdiction, wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence punishable under Sections 494 or 495 I.P.C, has jurisdiction, i.e. in present case in District-Ghaziabad, therefore, objection of learned counsel for applicant in regard to jurisdiction has no merit. 10. Court also takes note of contents of statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 3.3.2021 whereby applicant has been summoned for an offence under Sections 491, 406 and 506 I.P.C. and is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicant and in this regard Court takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383. 11. Accordingly, this application has no force and is hereby rejected. ---------- (2024) 7 ILRA 539 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J. Application U/S 482. No. 10718 of 2024 Smt. Kanchan Rawat & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties