# Manish Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1466
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 38177 of 2011
- **Bench:** Shri Kant Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-shukla-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42081
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Protection of Domestic Violence-ActSection
27-territorial
Jurisdictionincident took place at Gonda-aggrieved
lady residing at Basti-held-choicer of
aggrieved shall prevail-no interference
called for.

Held: Para 5

The court where the respondent resides,
carries on business or is employed has
also jurisdiction. The court within whose
local jurisdiction, the cause of action
wholly
or
partly
arises,
has
also
jurisdiction. It is open to the aggrieved
person to choose any of the said courts
for filing the complaint and she can not
be compelled to file the complaint
according
to
the
choice
of
the
respondents.
3 All] Manish Shukla and others V. State of U.P.and others
1467

## Text

1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
being canvassed are vitiated due to the
fraud committed by him. He cannot be
permitted to be spared of the fraud
committed by him even if now he
deposits the amount. Once his fraud was
detected the authorities were not obliged
to comply with the principles of natural
justice otherwise it would amount to the
expansion of the principle not to ensure
justice but to protect an action of fraud.
That cannot be a call envisaged in the
concept of the principles of natural
justice.

24. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, where on the one hand the
petitioner
cannot
be
deprived
of
conducting his business without any
suspension or cancellation of his fair price
shop but he also cannot be permitted to go
scot free after having committed a fraud.

25. Therefore, while upholding the
imputation in the impugned order to that
extent it is held that stopping the supply
of essential commodities to the petitioner
was not an act which was required to be
done only under a power conferred but
because there was fraud committed by the
petitioner hence the doctrine or principle
'fraud vitiates the most solemn act' came
into play and the action of the respondents
in passing the impugned order cannot be
held to be against law or guidelines as
contained in the government order.

26. This writ petition is disposed of
finally by requiring the Sub Divisional
Officer, Muzaffar Nagar (Respondent
No.2) to consider the defence of the
petitioner after giving him an opportunity
and while doing so the Respondent No.2
must also take a decision as to whether
the license of the petitioner requires to be
suspended or cancelled for the aforesaid
reason.

27. The writ petition is finally
disposed of.

28. No order is passed as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 38177 of
2011

Manish Shukla and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Protection of Domestic Violence-ActSection
27-territorial
Jurisdictionincident took place at Gonda-aggrieved
lady residing at Basti-held-choicer of
aggrieved shall prevail-no interference
called for.

Held: Para 5

The court where the respondent resides,
carries on business or is employed has
also jurisdiction. The court within whose
local jurisdiction, the cause of action
wholly
or
partly
arises,
has
also
jurisdiction. It is open to the aggrieved
person to choose any of the said courts
for filing the complaint and she can not
be compelled to file the complaint
according
to
the
choice
of
the
respondents.
3 All] Manish Shukla and others V. State of U.P.and others
1467
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. )

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla for
the petitioners and the learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. This is a petition under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for
quashing the order dated 16.11.2011
passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in
criminal appeal no. 53/2011, Manish
Shukla & others vs. Smt. Pratima and
others,
and
also
the
order
dated
15.10.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Basti in case no. 1785/2011,
Smt. Pratima Shukla vs. Manish Shukla &
others,

3. Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla appearing
for
the
petitioners
submitted
that
according to the allegations made in the
complaint the domestic violence against
the respondent no.2 took place in district
Gonda and the respondent no.2 moved
application to the Protection Officer,
Gonda regarding the domestic violence on
which basis, the Protection Officer
submitted domestic violence report to the
court of C.J.M. Basti. It was next
submitted
that
when
the
domestic
violence report was of the district Gonda,
filing of the complaint in district Basti
was not proper, therefore, Basti court had
no jurisdiction to pass any order.

4. It appears that the respondent no.
2 has filed a petition under section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') against the petitioners in the
court of CJM Basti and the petitioners, on
appearance before the court concerned,
raised
the
question
of
territorial
jurisdiction and contended that the CJM
Basti had no jurisdiction. The CJM
rejected the contentions of the petitioners
and held that he had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. The Sessions
Judge was also of the same view.

5. In my opinion, the question of
jurisdiction of the Magistrate does not
depend upon the domestic violence report
of the Protection Officer. The said
question is to be decided according to the
provisions of section 27 of the Act,
according
to
which,
the
court
of
Magistrate, within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction, the aggrieved person
permanently or temporarily resides or
carries on business or is employed, has
jurisdiction in the matter. The court where
the respondent resides, carries on business
or is employed has also jurisdiction. The
court within whose local jurisdiction, the
cause of action wholly or partly arises,
has also jurisdiction. It is open to the
aggrieved person to choose any of the
said courts for filing the complaint and
she can not be compelled to file the
complaint according to the choice of the
respondents. In the present matter, the
respondent no.2, who lives in district
Basti, chose to file complaint in the court
of CJM Basti, therefore, her complaint
can not be said to be not maintainable in
the said court only on the ground that the
domestic violence report was obtained
from the Protection Officer of the district
Gonda. The question of jurisdiction was
not to be decided on the basis of the office
of Protection Officer or his report, rather
it was to be decided only in the terms of
the provisions of section 27 of the Act.
The learned CJM as well as the Sessions
Judge have considered the question of
jurisdiction according to the parameters
provided in section 27 of the Act after
looking into the allegations made in the
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
complaint and have passed proper orders,
therefore,
the
matter
requires
no
interference.

6. Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla lastly
submitted that the domestic violence
report has been transferred on the request
of the respondent no.2 from the Protection
Officer, Gonda to the court of CJM Basti.
This could not be done and the Protection
Officer has no jurisdiction to act on the
request of the respondent no.2. In my
opinion, when the judicial matter under
section 12 of the Act was pending in the
court of CJM, who was competent to
decide the question of domestic violence,
the submission of the report even on the
request of the respondent no.2 to the court
of CJM, Basti can not be said to be
contrary to law.

7. The petition has no merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44148 of 2008

Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Mandal
Kanpur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Singh
Sri Ankur Goyal

Counsel for the Respondnets:
C.S.C.

Arms Act-Section 17-Cancellation of fire
arm license-license given considering
incident of murder of his family member
involvement in crime against world
without specific allegations and role can
not be ground for cancellation.

Held: Para 20

After going through the reply of the
petitioner to the show cause notice, it
transpires
that
on
account
of
two
murders in petitioner's family, for his
personal
safety,
the
petitioner
has
applied for firearm licence and he was
granted the same in the year 2000.
There
is
no
allegation,
except
the
present one, that the petitioner has ever
misused his firearm licence or have ever
committed any crime. Merely by saying
that a person has entered into world of
crime, cannot be said to be sufficient for
cancelling the firearm licence of a
person, which was granted after due
deliberations and due inquiry and after
verifying
the
credentials
of
the
petitioner. The apprehension cannot be
made basis for cancellation of the
firearm licence. The relevant section for
cancellation of firearm licence is very
unambiguous and clear in this regard.
Case la discussed:
2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. )

1. This writ petition has been filed
with the following prayers:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari calling for the
records of the case and quashing the
imkpugned order dated 29.2.2008 passed
by respondent no. 1 and order dated
25.10.2007 passed by respondent no. 2
(Annexure 5 and 2 to this writ petition)

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to release
the weapon of the petitioner during the