Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1209 (RAJ)

Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2004-08-25

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 20.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No. 45/2004 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners and upheld the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 669/2001 by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had held that he had jurisdiction to try the case and further framed charges against the accused-petitioners for offences under sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) The respondent No. 2-Rajeshwari lodged a complaint on 4.9.2001 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the present accused-petitioners and that complaint was sent under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Station, Sadar Sri Ganganagar for investigation, on which FIR No. 246/2001 was registered against the present accused-petitioners for offences under sections 498-A, 406 and 147 Indian Penal Code. (ii) After investigation, challan was filed against the accused-petitioners in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and through order dated 18.11.2003, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused-petitioners for offences under sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code, and the prayer of the accused-petitioners that the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction was rejected inter alia holding that offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code was a continuing offence. (iii) Against the order dated 18.11.2003, the accused- petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, but the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar through judgment dated 20.5.2004 rejected the same. Hence, this misc. petition. 3. In this misc. petition, the main case of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is that since the accused-petitioners are residents of Punjab and marriage of complainant-respondent No. 2 with Shri Ravindra Kumar who had died, was solemnized in village Ramsara, Tehsil Abohar, Distt. Firozpur and right from the marriage, complainant (respondent No. 2) and her husband Ravindra Kumar were living separately in Malot (Punjab) and since they were living in Punjab, therefore, if any cause of action had arisen, the same had arisen in Punjab and not in Rajasthan. Firozpur and right from the marriage, complainant (respondent No. 2) and her husband Ravindra Kumar were living separately in Malot (Punjab) and since they were living in Punjab, therefore, if any cause of action had arisen, the same had arisen in Punjab and not in Rajasthan. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners that merely because now the complainant-respondent No.2 has been residing in Rajasthan, for offence under sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code, no cause of action had accrued in Rajasthan and hence, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case against the accused-petitioners and therefore, the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and judgment dated 20.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar are without jurisdiction and should be quashed and set aside and this misc. petition should be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and judgment dated 20.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar are based on proper appreciation of material available on record and hence the same do not require any interference by this Court. 5. Heard and perused the case file. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the marriage of respondent No. 2 (Rajeshwari) was solemnized with Ravindra Kumar in Punjab and after marriage, the respondent No. 2 (Rajeshwari) was living in Punjab with her in-laws and there is also no dispute on the point that her husband Ravindra Kumar had died. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that now the respondent No. 2 has been residing in Sri Ganganagar District in State of Rajasthan alongwith her maternal relations. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that when FIR was lodged against the accused-petitioners, they did not take any objection about jurisdiction and this plea has been taken for the first time, when arguments on charges were heard. 9. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case against the present accused-petitioners or not. 10. 9. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case against the present accused-petitioners or not. 10. Before proceeding further, it has to be seen as to whether offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code can be said to be continuing offence or not and for that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas reported in (1999) 4 SCC 690 : 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 392 may be referred to, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that essence of offence in Section 498-A Indian Penal Code being cruelty, it is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the victim was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation and since offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code is continuing offence, therefore, provisions of Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code would not apply and a complaint in respect of said offence cannot be dismissed on the ground that it was time barred. This is one of the aspects of the matter. 11. According to Section 177 Criminal Procedure Code every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Sub-clause (c) of Section 178 Criminal Procedure Code provides that where offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local area than one, it can be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local area. 12. In my considered opinion, no doubt marriage of respondent No. A (Rajeshwari) had taken place in Punjab and thereafter she had lived in Punjab and after death of her husband, if she had returned to her maternal home at Sri Ganganagar and has been living there, offence of cruelty being continuing offence is still continuing within local area of Rajasthan where at present, the respondent No. 2 (Rajeshwari) is living and therefore, if the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court have observed that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sri Ganganagar had jurisdiction to try the case, in doing so, they have committed no irregularity and illegality. It may further be submitted here that wife who has been deserved, who has been ill- treated by her in-laws, is living separately from her in-laws, it will not mean that cruelty comes to an end and therefore, the Court,within whose jurisdiction wife is residing at present with her father or other members of her family, has also jurisdiction to try the said offence as the offence could be said to be partly committed and continues to be committed at the place where at present respondent No. 2 (complainant) is residing and from this point of view also, the plea of accused-petitioners that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar had no jurisdiction cannot be accepted and therefore, the case of the respondent No. 2 is squarely covered by Cl. (c) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, no interference is called for in the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and judgment dated 20.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar and the present misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.For the reasons mentioned above, the present misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******