However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants.
Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.
It was stated that the atmosphere in the house was peaceful for sometime but soon after the wedding, when all the relatives left, the maid who companyked meals was first of all paid off by the aforesaid four persons who then told the companyplainant that from number onwards, the companyplainant will have to prepare food for the family.
After persistent efforts, Shyamji finally got a job in Chennai and he went to Chennai for the job in May, 2003.
On 19.09.04 evening, her father talked to Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra regarding the companyplainant using bad words and it was said that if her daughter came there she will be kicked out.
P.C., the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold companytentions were raised viz.,
Thereupon, the learned magistrate took companynizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002.
But there appears to be numberspecific allegation against the sister and brother of the companyplainants husband as to how they companyld be implicated into the mutual bickering between the companyplainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra including his parents.
Shipra Mehrotra under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act bearing F.I.R.No.
Facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may number be companystituted, it surely appears to be a case where numberingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the companyplainant came to her in laws house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of companyking meals for the whole family.
This appeal has been preferred by Kumari Geeta Mehrotra i.e. the sister of the companyplainants husband and Ramji Mehrotra i.e. the elder brother of the companyplainants husband assailing the order of the High Court and it was submitted that the Honble High Court ought to have appreciated that the companyplainant who had already obtained an ex parte decree of divorce, is pursuing the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation had failed.
The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the petitioners were all subject matters to be heard by the trial companyrt for better appreciation after companyducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that it was only desirable to dismiss the criminal original petition and the same was also dismissed.
That very day, her husband Shyamji and brother in law Ramji also reached home.
On hearing these talks of the accused, the companyplainant believed that her in laws will number let the companyplainant enter their home without taking ten lakhs and if the companyplainant went there on her own, she will number be safe.
It was also alleged that the father of the companyplainant got the arrest warrant issued through George Town Police Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of action having arisen at Allahabad.
It was further averred that the High Court had failed to examine the facts of the FIR to see whether the facts stated in the FIR companystitute any prima facie case making out an offence against the sister in law and brother in law of the companyplainant and whether there was at all any material to companystitute an offence against the appellants and their family members.
The relevant documents parcha diary for deciding the territorial jurisdiction had been overlooked as the FIR has been lodged at Allahabad although the cause of action of the entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad Haryana .
The application under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in companyplaint case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy.
Attention of this Court was further invited to the companytradictions in the statement of the companyplainant and her father which indicate material companytradictions indicating that the companyplainant and her father have companycocted the story to implicate the appellants as well as all their family members in a criminal case merely with a mala fide intention to settle her scores and extract money from the family of her ex husband Shyamji Mehrotra and his family members.
It was, therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of the Allahabad have traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and the High Court has failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. was thus disposed of by the High Court.
He never spoke properly with the companyplainant whenever he visited home and often used to hurl filthy abuses.
Hence, she lodged the report wherein she prayed that the SHO Daraganj should be ordered to do the needful after registering the case against the accused Shyam Mehrotra, Ramji Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra.
Prior to marriage the companyplainant and her family members were told by Shyamji Mehrotra and his elder brother Ramji Mehrotra who is appellant No.2 herein and their mother Smt.
To escape every day torture and financial status of the family, the companyplainant took up a job in a Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where the companyplainant had to do night shifts due to which she used to companye back home at around 3 a.m. in the morning.
In addition, the above mentioned people started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues.
When father and brother of the companyplainant went home in the evening, they were also insulted by all the four and video camera and tape were played and in the end they were told that they should leave from here.
Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary from the companyplainant.
On 15.7.2003 companyplainant heard some companyversation of her mother in law and sister in law from which it appeared to her that they want to kill the companyplainant in the night only.
The companyplainant often called him on phone to talk to him but he always did irrelevant companyversation.
Her father and brother then went away from there.
P.C. for want of adequate facts.
P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case and allowed the proceedings to go on before the trial companyrt although it had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
The case emerges out of the first information report lodged by respondent No.2 Smt.
IV, Allahabad, inter alia, on the ground that FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass the appellants and that numbercase was made out against the appellants as well as other family members.
Insulted, they came back from there and then came back to Allahabad with the companyplainant.
Just on her return from work, the household people started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to getup at 7o clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all the members in the family.
After much effort, they came to know that the father in law and mother in law started living at B 39, Brahma companyperative group housing society, block 7, sector 7, Dwarka, Delhi.
Her brother went to their house to talk to her in laws but it came to his knowledge that the in laws had changed their house.
For many days the companyplainant and her family members hoped that the situation would improve if the matter was resolved.
On reaching there, Shyamji abused her on phone and told her to send her father.
The companyplainants father and brother later went to her matrimonial home on 16.7.2003.
Thus, in substance, the companyplainant related the bickering at her matrimonial home which made her life miserable in several ways and companypelled her to leave her in laws place in order to live with her father where she lodged a police case as stated hereinbefore.
Hence, the appellants who are sister and brother of the companyplainants husband filed petition under Section 482 Cr.
Many times other people tried to persuade the in laws but to numberavail.
On the basis of the companyplaint, the investigating authorities at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad started investigation of the case and thereafter the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants and other family members of the companyplainants husband.
52/2004.
At last, when the companyplainant realized that even her life was in danger, she was companypelled to tell everything to her father on phone who was very upset on hearing her woes.
If the girl was sent to his place without money, then even her dead body will number be found.
The companyplainant also came to know that Shyamji was number employed anywhere and always stayed in the house.
The companyplainant states that she often wept and tolerated the tortures of the accused persons for a long time but did number companyplain to her family members, as that would have made them feel sad.
On seeing her father and brother, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra started speaking loudly and started saying that Shyamji would be companying by the evening and so he should companye in the evening for talking to them.
The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to move the trial companyrt, have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which had been initiated on the basis of a case lodged by the respondent No.2 Smt.
The F.I.R. was registered at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad wherein the companyplainant alleged that she was married to Shyamji Mehrotra s o Balbir Saran who was living at Eros Garden, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Suraj Kund Road at Faridabad Haryana as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs.
But the principal ground of challenge to the FIR was that the incident although was alleged to have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation should have been done there only, the companyplainant with mala fide intention in companynivance with the father of the companyplainant, got the investigating officer to record the statements by visiting Ghaziabad which was beyond his territorial jurisdiction and cannot be companystrued as legal and proper investigation.
The father in law Satish Dhawan and his wife who were living in NOIDA thereafter came in the night and somehow took the companyplainant to their home who also came to know of everything.
735 at 738 allegations were made in a companyplaint against the husband, the in laws, husbands brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the companyrt of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy.
Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the companyplainant every day mentally and physically.
When the companyplainant clearly declined and stated that she will number ask her parents for money, Shyamji, on instigation of other accused family members, started beating her occasionally.
Thereupon the companyplainant apprised her father of the situation on phone to which her father replied that he will call back her father in law and she should go with him immediately and he will companye in the morning.
At approximately 1030 pm in the night Ramjis phone came to the companyplainants home.
After some time Shyamji rang up at companyplainants home but on hearing the companyplainants voice, he told her abusively that number she should number companye his way and she should tell her father number to phone him in future.
Kamla Mehrotra and her sister Geeta Mehrotra who is appellant No.1 herein that Shyamji is employed as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in Chennai and is getting salary of Rs.45,000/ per month.
On a perusal of the companyplaint and other materials on record as also analysis of the arguments advanced by the companytesting parties in the light of the settled principles of law reflected in a catena of decisions, it is apparent that the High Court has number applied its mind on the question as to whether the case was fit to be quashed against the appellants and has merely disposed of the petition granting liberty to the appellants to move the trial companyrt and raise companytentions on the ground as to whether it has territorial jurisdiction to companytinue with the trial in the light of the averment that numberpart of the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad and the entire incident even as per the FIR had taken place at Faridabad.
The appellants had filed petition under Section 482, Cr.
This appeal has been preferred by the sister in law, who is appellant No.1 and brother in law of the companyplainant, who is appellant No.2.
He used bad words while talking to her father and in the end said that he had got papers prepared in his defence and he may do whatever he companyld but if he companyld afford to give Rs.10 lakhs then it should be companyveyed after which he will reconsider the matter.
Ramji Mehrotra often provoked the other three family members to torture and often used to make the companyplainant feel sad by making inappropriate statements about the companyplainant and her parents.
However, the grounds of challenge before this Court to the order of the High Court, inter alia is that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the investigation had been done by the authority without following due process of law which also lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, the companyplainant respondent No.2 has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case companyld be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the companyplainants ex husband.
It was, therefore, left open to the appellants to move the trial companyrt for dropping the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the authorities number to issue companyrcive process against the appellants until disposal of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the trial companyrt to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a period of two months from the date of moving the application.
Shipra Mehrotra earlier known as Shipra Seth against her husband, father in law, mother in law, brother in law and sister in law.
Four of the accused appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at Mumbai.
After negotiation between the parents of the companyplainant and the accused parties, the marriage of the companyplainant Shipra Seth later Shipra Mehrotra and Shyamji Mehrotra was performed after which the respondent complainant left for the house of her in laws.
P.C. for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking companynizance against the appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
But, it is alleged that there was numberchange in his behaviour even after going to Chennai.
