# Majid Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 3752 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/majid-khan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52306
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section
125
&
126-
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot become a tool
to frustrate the very object of Section 125
Cr.P.C. merely on objection of jurisdiction-
Section
126
Cr.P.C.
provides
that
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
may be taken against any person in any
district where he is residing or where he
or his wife resides. Therefore, if wife
resides at Bareilly, she can file complaint
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Bareilly also

Petition Dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ACJM-II, Jaunpur is set aside and matter is
remitted back to concerned trial Court to
pass a fresh order after taking note of
factum about charge sheet filed in NCR
lodged by complainant on non-cognizable
offence and order passed under Section
2(d) Cr.P.C. as well as while passing fresh
order, concerned Court would also take
note of Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) after
hearing the complainant.

16. Application stands disposed of
with above observations.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
---------
(2024) 8 ILRA 228
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3752 of 2024

Majid Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohammad Fateh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section
125
&
126-
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot become a tool
to frustrate the very object of Section 125
Cr.P.C. merely on objection of jurisdiction-
Section
126
Cr.P.C.
provides
that
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
may be taken against any person in any
district where he is residing or where he
or his wife resides. Therefore, if wife
resides at Bareilly, she can file complaint
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Bareilly also

Petition Dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs Mrs.
Veena Kuashal & ors., AIR 1978 SC 1807)

2. Smt. Dukhtar Jahan Vs Mohammed Farooq
(1978)1 SCC 624;

3. Vimla (K.) Vs Veeraswamy (K.) (1991)2 SCC
375;

4. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs St.of Guj. &
anr.(1996)4 SCC 479;

5. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai (2008)2 SCC 316

6.
Bhuwan
Mohan
Singh
Vs
Meena
&
ors.(2015)6 SCC 353.

7. Nirman Sagar Vs Smt. Monika Sagar
Chaudhari & anr.(Criminal Revision No. 3060 of
2021), decided on 01.04.2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The Court proceed to decide
present case, i.e., an objection with regard
to jurisdiction of an application filed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the background that
Supreme Court in a judgment passed about
four and half decades ago, has observed
that provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
measure of social justice and specially
enacted to protect women and children and
falls within the constitutional sweep of
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution. (See, Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal vs. Mrs. Veena Kuashal
and others, AIR 1978 SC 1807)

2. Above observation has been
followed in Smt. Dukhtar Jahan vs.
Mohammed Farooq (1978)1 SCC 624;
8 All. Majid Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
Vimla (K.) vs. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991)2
SCC 375; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State
of Gujarat and another (1996)4 SCC 479;
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008)2 SCC 316
and Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and
others (2015)6 SCC 353.

3. In the present case, Opposite Party
No. 2, i.e., complainant, has filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on
30.07.2021 declaring herself to be resident
of District Bareilly.

4. In aforesaid case applicant appeared
and filed an objection that complaint is
resident of Delhi and she has filed an
application under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2005")
stating that she was a resident of Delhi and
during proceeding thereof the address was
verified also. Applicant has challenged the
maintainability of application so filed under
Section
125
Cr.P.C.
on
ground
of
jurisdiction.

5. Complainant has filed a reply to
aforesaid objection mentioning specifically
that her permanent address where her parents
reside is at Bareilly and only for the purpose
of job she stayed at Delhi and she has
frequent visits to her permanent address at
Bareilly.

6. Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bareilly
considered
the
application
of
complainant and objection of applicant and
passed impugned order dated 21.01.2023
whereby objection with regard to jurisdiction
was rejected. For reference impugned order is
reproduced hereinafter:

पुकारा्‌ र्या।्‌ उभयपक्ष्‌ उपण्स्र्थत।्‌
13-ख्‌
प्रार्थगनापि्‌
पर्‌
उभयपक्ष्‌
को्‌
सुना।्‌
उक्त्‌ प्रार्थगनापि्‌ विपक्षी्‌ की्‌ ओर्‌ से्‌ िाद्‌ का्‌
क्षेिाचधकार्‌ इस्‌ न्यायालय्‌ को्‌ नहीं्‌ होने्‌ के्‌
त्रबन्दु्‌ पर्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ है्‌ तर्था्‌ कर्थन्‌
ककया्‌
है्‌
कक्‌
आिेददका्‌
ने्‌
िाद्‌
सं०्‌
5412/200्‌ ननदा्‌ कुमार्‌ बनाम्‌ माण्जद्‌ खााँ्‌
अंतर्गत्‌
धारा्‌
12्‌
घरेलू्‌
दहंसा्‌
अचधननयम्‌
मुख्य्‌
मेट्रोपोभलटन्‌
मण्जस्ट्रेट, साउर्थ्‌
ईस्ट्‌
साकेत्‌ ददमली्‌ में्‌ ददनांक्‌ 28.10.2020्‌ को्‌
पंजीकृत्‌
कराया्‌
र्था्‌
ण्जसमें्‌
उसने्‌
अपना्‌
ननिास्‌ एि-14्‌ ए, लेन्‌ नं०्‌ 3्‌ ए्‌ र्फफार्‌
मंण्जल, जाभमया्‌ नर्र, नई्‌ ददमली-25्‌ बताया्‌
है्‌ जबकक्‌ यह्‌ िाद्‌ बरेली्‌ का्‌ ननिासी्‌ होने्‌
का्‌ कर्थन्‌ करते्‌ हुए्‌ बरेली्‌ में्‌ दाखखल्‌ ककया्‌
है।्‌
ऐसी्‌
दशा्‌
में्‌
िाद्‌
की्‌
सुनिाई्‌
का्‌
क्षेिाचधकार्‌ इस्‌ न्यायालय्‌ को्‌ नहीं्‌ है।्‌ अतः्‌
िाद्‌ खाररज्‌ ककया्‌ जाये।

आपवत्त्‌ ददनांककत्‌ 17.12.2022्‌ के्‌
माध्यम्‌ से्‌ कर्थन्‌ ककया्‌ है्‌ कक्‌ आिेददका्‌
अपनी्‌ नौकरी्‌ के्‌ भसलभसले्‌ में्‌ ककराये्‌ के्‌
मकान्‌ में्‌ रहती्‌ है्‌ जबकक्‌ बरेली्‌ में्‌ उसके्‌
माता-वपता्‌ ननिास्‌ करते्‌ हैं्‌ तर्था्‌ यह्‌ उसका्‌
स्र्थाई्‌ ननिास्‌ है्‌ तर्था्‌ िह्‌ उसका्‌ ददमली्‌ से्‌
आना्‌ जाना्‌ बना्‌ रहता।्‌ है।

अतः्‌ आपवत्त्‌ के्‌ माध्यम्‌ से्‌ िाद्‌
खाररज्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌ की्‌ मााँर््‌ की्‌ र्ई्‌ है।

सुना्‌ एिं्‌ पिािली्‌ का्‌ अिलोकन्‌
ककया।्‌ आिेददका्‌ ने्‌ बरेली्‌ को्‌ स्र्थाई्‌ ननिास्‌
बताते्‌ हुए्‌ िाद्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ ककया्‌ है्‌ उसने्‌ िषग्‌
2020 में्‌ एक्‌ अन्य्‌ मुकदमा्‌ नई्‌ ददमली्‌ के्‌
पते्‌ से्‌ विपक्षी्‌ के्‌ विरूदध्‌ दायर्‌ ककया्‌ है।्‌
उसने्‌ न्यायालय्‌ के्‌ समक्ष्‌ यह्‌ बताया्‌ कक्‌
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
यह्‌ अभी्‌ भी्‌ ददमली्‌ में्‌ ककराये्‌ के्‌ मकान्‌
में्‌ रहती्‌ है्‌ तर्था्‌ उसका्‌ बरेली्‌ आना्‌ जाना्‌
रहता्‌ है।्‌ िूंकक्‌ आिेददका्‌ का्‌ स्र्थाई्‌ पता्‌
बरेली्‌ है्‌ तर्था्‌ िह्‌ रोजर्ार्‌ के्‌ भसलभसले्‌ में्‌
नई्‌ ददमली्‌ में्‌ भी्‌ रहती्‌ है्‌ इसभलए्‌ बरेली्‌
में्‌
िाद्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌
करने्‌
का्‌
क्षेिाचधकार्‌
समापत्‌ नहीं्‌ हो्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌ आिेददका्‌ ददमली्‌
के्‌ पते्‌ से्‌ भी्‌ िाद्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ कर्‌ सकती्‌ है्‌
तर्था्‌
बरेली्‌
के्‌
पते्‌
से्‌
भी्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌
कर्‌
सकती्‌
है।्‌
अतः्‌
प्रार्थगनापि्‌
ननरस्त्‌
ककये्‌
जाने्‌ योग्य्‌ है।
आदेश

प्रार्थगनापि्‌
13-ख्‌
ननरस्त्‌
ककया्‌
जाता्‌
है।्‌
पिािली्‌
िास्ते्‌
प्रनतिाद्‌
पि्‌
ददनांक्‌ 02.03.2023 को्‌ पेश्‌ हो्‌ ।.

7. Sri Mohammad Fateh, learned
counsel for applicant, has placed reliance
on a judgment passed by High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Nirman
Sagar vs. Smt. Monika Sagar Chaudhari
and another (Criminal Revision No. 3060
of 2021), decided on 01.04.2022 that in
terms
of
Section
126
Cr.P.C.
the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can
be initiated in any district where he or his
wife resides or where he last resided with
her wife or as the case may be with the
mother of the illegitimate child and further
held that word ?reside? would not include a
casual stay or a flying visit to a particular
place.

8. Above submissions are vehemently
opposed by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned
counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2
and he placed reliance on Captain Ramesh
Chander
Kaushal
(supra)
that
since
provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of
welfare legislation, therefore, the issue of
jurisdiction be also considered in a liberal
manner.

9. On merit, learned counsel for
Opposite Party No. 2 submits that Trial
Court has considered that Bareilly is
permanent residence of complainant where
she is frequently visiting and only for the
purpose of job she stays at Delhi though he
has not disputed that an application under
Section 12 of Act, 2005 was filed at Delhi.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

11. Aforesaid fact with regard to
filing of application under Section 12 of
Act, 2005 at Delhi as well as complainant
resides at Delhi for the purpose of job, is
not under dispute. It is also not under much
dispute that complainants parents are
permanent resident of Bareilly. Marriage
was also solemnized at Bareilly. Therefore,
it
cannot
be
much
disputed
that
complainant is visiting at her permanent
residence frequently. As such, it cannot be
said that visit to Bareilly was a casual stay
or a flying visit. Permanent address of
complainant at Bareilly would fall within
the contour of reside.

12. The other argument of learned
counsel
for
applicant
is
that
since
application under Section 12 of Act, 2005
was filed by complainant at Delhi,
therefore, she is now not permitted to file
any application at Bareilly. However, if this
argument is accepted, the very purpose of
Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is already
referred as a welfare legislation, would be
frustrated.
Therefore,
this
Court
by
invoking inherent power under Section 482
8 All. Navneet Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
231
Cr.P.C. cannot become a tool to frustrate
the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
merely on objection of jurisdiction. The
Court cannot ignore that it is not much
disputed that complainants parents are
permanent resident of Bareilly and she has
frequent visit thereat.

13. The facts of present case are
distinguishable from the facts of judgment
cited by learned counsel for applicant in
Nirman Sagar (supra). Section 126 Cr.P.C.
provides that proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any
person in any district where he is residing
or where he or his wife resides. Therefore,
if wife resides at Bareilly, she can file
complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at
Bareilly also. It is upto the complainant to
chose the place of jurisdiction and in the
present case complainant has chosen to file
complaint at Bareilly.

14. In aforesaid circumstances, I do
not find that there is any ground to interfere
with impugned order whereby objection
with regard to jurisdiction was rejected.

15. The application is accordingly
rejected.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 231
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 7515 of 2024

Navneet Bhadauria ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anuuj Taandon, Purnendu Chakravarty

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Digvijay Nath Dubey

(Criminal
Law-The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Sections-72 & 91-
For seeking benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C./
Section 91 BNSS, the concerned has to
appear/ surrender before the concerned
court-Applicant
without
submitting/
surrendering himself to the jurisdiction of
the court, preferred an application for
recall of the NonBailable Warrant under
Section 70 Cr.P.C./ Section 72 BNSS- it is
apparent from the record that anticipatory
bail was granted by this Court vide order
dated 18.11.2022 and thereafter order
granting anticipatory bail was cancelled
by this Court after taking note of the fact
that
the
applicant
did
not
appear
personally several dates. (Para 14) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Tarsem Lal Vs Directorate of Enforcement
Jalandhar Zonal Office reported in (2024) 7 SCC
61

2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 :
(2022) 10 SCC 51

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S. P.
Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
and Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
perused the record.

2. Before proceeding, it would be apt
to rectify that in the order dated 28.08.2024
inadvertently name of "Shri Pradeep Kumar
Shukla, Advocate" has been indicated as
counsel for opposite party no. 2, which is
rectified and same would read as "Shri
Digvijay Nath Dubey, Advocate".