# Roshan Lal Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others Opp.parties

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 523
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Case No.843 of 2011
- **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roshan-lal-yadav-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-opp-parties-41914
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2 All] Roshan Lal Yadav and others V. State of U.P. and others
523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Criminal Misc. Case No.843 of 2011

Roshan Lal Yadav and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opp.parties

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 178
(c)-offence continue to be committed in
more local areas-court of concerned area
has jurisdiction-Power of Magistrate to
take
cognizance-not
controlled
by
territorial jurisdiction-part of offence
committed
at
Lucknow
not
deniedapplication
to
quash
proceedingrejected.

Held: Para 9 and 10

Upon perusal of the contents of the First
Information Report I find that the
complainant
has
stated
that
the
petitioners have abused and tortured her
at several times at Lucknow and also
threatened
to
divorce
her.
In
continuation of it, he has also filed a suit
for divorce at Varanasi, which has been
stayed by this court. When she received
information about the second marriage
of her husband with another lady,
namely, Renu Yadav, daughter of Shri
Sudama
Yadav,
resident
of
district
Ghazipur, she being at Lucknow asked
about it from her husband through
mobile phone, who accepted it very
anxiously and again by threatening that
whatever she wants to do, she may do.
Thus, from the facts of the case part of
offence committed at Lucknow, cannot
be denied. It also establishes that the
offence continued at several times at
several places including Lucknow. Thus,
this
case
very
much
attracts
the
provisions of Section 178 (c ) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the
cases cited by the petitioners in their
favour do not come in the way of learned
Magistrate to proceed with the case at
Lucknow.

Apart from above, the learned Additional
Government Advocate pointed out the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Trisuns Chemical
Industry versus Rajesh Agarwal and
others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 686, in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held
that
the
jurisdictional
aspect
becomes
relevant
only
when
the
question of enquiry or trial arises, the
Magistrate's power to take cognizance of
offence is not impaired by territorial
restriction. After taking cognizance he
may have to decide as to the court which
has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the
offence and that situation would reach
only during the post-cognizance stage
and not earlier.
Case law discussed:
(1997) 5 SCC 30; 2007 (1) JIC 269 (SC); 2007
(3) JIC 436 (All); (1999) 8 SCC 686

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Shukla,J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.M.K.Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Mohd.Tabrez Iqbal, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.3 as well as
Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
opposite parties 1 and 2.

2. Counter affidavit as well
supplementary counter affidavit filed by
the State is taken on record.

3. The petitioners have challenged
the proceedings of case No.949 of 2010,
pending before the court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Customs, Lucknow
for trial of offences committed under
Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police
Station
Ghazipur,
district
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Lucknow, arising out of case crime
No.1070 of 2009.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioners invited the attention of this
court towards the contents of the First
Information Report and submitted that no
offence has been reported to have been
committed
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of Lucknow, rather allegedly
it took place at Bilaspur, Chattisgarh,
therefore, the learned Magistrate at
Lucknow lacks jurisdiction.

5. In support of his submission he
cited some decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as of this court,
which are referred to hereunder:-

(1) Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) versus
Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported
in (1997) 5 SCC 30.

6. In the aforesaid case the appellant
claimed the cruel treatment by the
respondents persistently at Raigarh and
also at Raipur, consequential to the series
of the incidents taking place at Raigarh.
The High Court held that several isolated
events had taken place at Raigarh and one
isolated incident had taken place at
Raipur, hence, the criminal case, which
was filed at Raipur was only maintainable
against the respondent husband against
whom some overt act at Raipur was
alleged,
but
such
case
was
not
maintainable
against
the
other
respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that it appears that the complaint
reveals
a
continuing
offence
of
maltreatment and humiliation meted out
to the appellant in the hands of all the
accused
respondents
and
in
such
continuing offence, on some occasions all
the respondents had taken part and on
other occasion, one of the respondents
had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is clearly attracted. Section 178
clause (c) contemplates that "where an
offence is a continuing one, and continues
to be committed in more local areas" then
such offence can be tried by a court
having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas.

(2) Manish Patan & others versus
State of M.P. And another, reported in
2007 (1) JIC 269 (SC).

7. In this case also the question of
jurisdiction arose. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court after dealing with the facts of the
case ultimately found that no part of cause
of action arose within the territorial limits
of the jurisdiction of Datia court,
therefore, it set aside the order passed by
the High Court and transferred the
criminal case pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the
court
of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Jabalpur.

(3) Dr.(Mrs.) Sarojini Arawattigi
and another versus State of U.P. And
another, reported in 2007 (3) JIC 436
(All).

8. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble
Supreme Court discussed the scope of
Section 177 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which lays down the place
where
the
criminal
case
can
be
prosecuted. According to it, every offence
shall be inquired into and tried by a court
within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also discussed Section 178(c) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that at no stage
2 All] Roshan Lal Yadav and others V. State of U.P. and others
525
the applicants demanded any dowry or
harassed the lady at Kanpur for nonfulfillment of dowry, therefore, it quashed
the proceedings pending in the court of
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, district
Kanpur Nagar and opened to the
complainant to take necessary legal action
against the applicant in appropriate forum.

9. Upon perusal of the contents of
the First Information Report I find that
the complainant has stated that the
petitioners have abused and tortured her
at several times at Lucknow and also
threatened to divorce her. In continuation
of it, he has also filed a suit for divorce
at Varanasi, which has been stayed by
this
court.
When
she
received
information about the second marriage of
her husband with another lady, namely,
Renu Yadav, daughter of Shri Sudama
Yadav, resident of district Ghazipur, she
being at Lucknow asked about it from
her husband through mobile phone, who
accepted it very anxiously and again by
threatening that whatever she wants to
do, she may do. Thus, from the facts of
the case part of offence committed at
Lucknow, cannot be denied. It also
establishes that the offence continued at
several times at several places including
Lucknow. Thus, this case very much
attracts the provisions of Section 178 (c )
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
therefore,
the
cases
cited
by
the
petitioners in their favour do not come in
the way of learned Magistrate to proceed
with the case at Lucknow.

10. Apart from above, the learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
pointed out the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Trisuns Chemical Industry versus
Rajesh Agarwal and others, reported
in (1999) 8 SCC 686, in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant
only when the question of enquiry or trial
arises, the Magistrate's power to take
cognizance of offence is not impaired by
territorial
restriction.
After
taking
cognizance he may have to decide as to
the court which has jurisdiction to
enquire into or try the offence and that
situation would reach only during the
post-cognizance stage and not earlier.

11. In light of the aforesaid facts as
well as the law laid down by the courts
dealing with the same question as well as
the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, I find that the learned
Magistrate at Lucknow has very much
jurisdiction
to
try
with
the
case.
Therefore, no interference is warranted.

The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.

12. However, it is provided that if
the petitioners appear before the court
below and move an application for bail
within four weeks, the same shall be
considered and disposed of by the courts
below expeditiously. Since the petitioner
No.2 is a lady her application for bail
shall be considered under the privilege
clause provided under Section 437 of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
and
disposed of, if possible on the same day
by the courts below.

13. For four weeks, no coercive
action shall
be
taken
against the
petitioners.
---------
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA,J.

Misc. Single No. - 1558 of 2010

Ishtiyaq Khan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner
Lucknow
Division
Lucknow and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arms Act, 1959-Section-13 and 14Licence of Non Prohibited Fire Armsrevenue as well as Police Authorities
submitted report with recommendation
to grant of Licence-rejected on ground
the Petitioner not disclosed the name of
anti-social elements and eminent danger
of life-held-wholly misconceived-except
the grounds mention in Section 14 there
can not be basis for refusal beyond
statutory provision-Licensee as well as
appellate authorities committed great
illegality-orders
set-a-side-with
consequential direction.

Held: Para 14 and 15

It may be noted that in Abdul Kafi versus
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
and
another
[2003
(21)
LCD
299]
the
petitioner filed a writ petition when his
application was rejected although the
report of the concerned authorities were
in
favour
of
the
petitioner.
The
application was rejected by the Licensing
Authority
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner
has
not
stated
in
his
application form as to from whom he has
danger to his life

The aforesaid citation is fully applicable
in the instant case as here also, as
averred above, the application has been
rejected simply on the ground that the
petitioner has not indicated that what
type of danger he apprehends and why
the arms license is required by him.
Case law discussed:
[2003 (21) LCD 299]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. )

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Brief facts of the present case are
that the petitioner is resident of Village
Andapur,
Police
Station
Phardhan,
District Kheri and by profession, he is a
contractor registered as such with Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. On 4.6.2008, the
petitioner applied for non-prohibited
Revolver (Firearm) license in the requisite
format before the Licensing Authority.
Licensing Authority call for the reports as
required under Section 13 of the Arms
Act. The authorities, namely, Station
House Officer and In-charge DCRB,
Kheri submitted their respective reports
dated 8.7.2009 and 11.8.2009. On the
basis of the said report, Superintendent of
Police, Kheri also submitted the report
dated
26.9.2009
recommending
for
issuance of Arms License.The revenue
authorities,
i.e.
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri also vide
report dated 25.6.2008 forwarded the
application
for
grant
of
Arms
License.When no action was taken on his
application, he filed a writ petition No.
2434 (MS) of 2009 which was disposed
of finally vide order dated 7.5.2009 with a