Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1065 (MP)

DHANANJAY JAISWAL v. STATE OF M P

2005-10-14

S.L.JAIN

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) INVOKING extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth the code), the applicants have filed this petition for quashing the FIR registered at P. S. Saunsar, District, chhindwara as Crime No. 243/2002 and also the criminal proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar, arising therefrom. ( 2. ) THE applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2, Preeti jaiswal. Their marriage was solemnized on 21-5-2002. Applicant No. 2, Sanjay jaiswal, is elder brother of applicant No. 1, Smt. Vanita is the wife of applicant no. 2 and Smt. Rajeshwari, the applicant No. 4 and Smt. Usha Anand Jaiswal, the respondent No. 5, are Mousis (mothers sisters) of applicant No. 1. ( 3. ) ON 27-10-2002, respondent No. 2 lodged a report against the applicants alleging that in her marriage various presents including golden ornaments, television, fridge, cooler, almirah and utensils were given. After her marriage she lived in her matrimonial home for about 2-1/2 months. The applicants used to tell her that her father has not given adequate dowry. They used to tell her to bring Rs. 4 lacs and used to treat her like servant. Other applicants used to instigate applicant No 1 to insist for more dowry. The applicant No. 1 used to assault her. She informed her father on telephone about the ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and his relatives. Thereupon, on 17-8-2002, her brother brought her to Saunsar from Hyderabad. After reaching Saunsar when she had a telephonic talk with her husband, he blamed her with a stigma on her character. It was also stated by the complainant in the fir that because of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the applicant she is living with her father. ( 4. ) ON the report lodged by the respondent No. 2 Crime No. 243/2002 was registered at P. S. Saunsar against the applicants. After investigation a charge sheet for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC was filed against the applicants. ( 5. ) WHEN the matter stood thus, the applicants filed this petition under section 482 of the Code alleging that the police station concerned had no jurisdiction to register the case and the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain the challan. ( 5. ) WHEN the matter stood thus, the applicants filed this petition under section 482 of the Code alleging that the police station concerned had no jurisdiction to register the case and the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain the challan. Even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in toto, according to the applicants, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of police station or the Court concerned at Saunsar. The complainant herself disclosed that after 17-8-2002 the respondent No. 2 left hyderabad and came to Saunsar and has been staying there. Therefore, the police station and the Court concerned did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. ( 6. ) I have heard Shri S. C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. Patel, Counsel, appearing for applicants and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents; and perused the material on record. ( 7. ) SHRI S. C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel submitted that a bare reading of the FIR would go to show that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of P. S. , Saunsar where the FIR was lodged, therefore, entire proceedings have no foundation. ( 8. ) PER contra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant, submitted that the alleged offence was continuing in terms of Section 178-C of the Code. Therefore, the police station and the Court concerned at Saunsar had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. ( 9. ) A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant had a telephonic talk with her husband from Saunsar during which the husband blamed the complainant with a stigma of bad character. This alleged act of the husband also amounts to cruelty in terms of Section 498-A of the IPC. Thus, cruelty continued at Saunsar also where the allegation regarding character was telephonically received by the complainant. When the offence is constituted by entire set of facts and offence is continuing to be committed in more than one local areas, then it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Jurisdiction over the crime belongs to all the Courts within whose jurisdiction any part of the offence is committed or the same being continuous to be committed in more than one local areas. Jurisdiction over the crime belongs to all the Courts within whose jurisdiction any part of the offence is committed or the same being continuous to be committed in more than one local areas. A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once for all. When the cruelty continued at Saunsar also where serious allegation regarding character of the complainant is alleged to have been made, the Court at Saunsar shall also have the jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case and the police station at Saunsar had jurisdiction to register the offence and investigate the same. ( 10. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel also submitted that in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code there is not even a whisper regarding blame or stigma of bad character. While considering the matter not only the allegations in the FIR but also in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code are to be seen. ( 11. ) MERELY because certain facts are not their in the statements under section 161, though they find place in the FIR which is earlier in time, it cannot be said at this stage that the allegations in the FIR are after thought. It is not a case where there are no allegations at all. ( 12. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicants, relying on Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 scc 100 , vehemently submitted that when no part of cause of action arose at saunsar, P. S. Saunsar had no jurisdiction to register the offence. ( 13. ) IT is true that where inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose at a particular place then the Courts having jurisdiction at that place have no authority to take the cognizance but here in the factual scenario, as detailed above, there is material to the effect that a part of the continuing offence was committed within the local jurisdiction of P. S. Saunsar. ( 14. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel also canvassed vehemently that accepting that the allegation regarding the character was received at Saunsar, the P. S. at saunsar shall have the jurisdiction to register a case only against the husband who is alleged to have made the allegation. ( 14. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel also canvassed vehemently that accepting that the allegation regarding the character was received at Saunsar, the P. S. at saunsar shall have the jurisdiction to register a case only against the husband who is alleged to have made the allegation. No cause of action arose against the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 in Saunsar. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are liable to be quashed. ( 15. ) THIS contention also is not acceptable. Section 184 of the Code provides that if the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they could be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 223 of the Code, the same may be enquired into or tried by any Court competent to enquire into or try any of the offences. The object of enacting section 223 is to avoid multiplicity of trials. Therefore, Court at Saunsar has jurisdiction to try the case against all accused persons. ( 16. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant Nos. 4 and 5 do not live with applicant No. 1. They are distant relatives of the other applicants. They have been falsely implicated in the case with a view to harass them, they being relatives of the husband of the complainant. The powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised to undo the wrong. The proceedings against applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and in order to secure the ends of justice the proceedings against applicant nos. 4 and 5 should be quashed. ( 17. ) THIS contention also cannot be countenanced. There are specific allegations against the applicant Nos. 4 and 5 in the FIR. The FIR can be " quashed only where the allegations made in the FIR and taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence. Normally, the proceedings during investigation or the proceedings of a case instituted after investigation on the basis of the FIR should not be quashed so as to bar the normal process of law. When there are specific allegations in the FIR against the applicant Nos. 4 and 5 also, the proceedings cannot be quashed invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Normally, the proceedings during investigation or the proceedings of a case instituted after investigation on the basis of the FIR should not be quashed so as to bar the normal process of law. When there are specific allegations in the FIR against the applicant Nos. 4 and 5 also, the proceedings cannot be quashed invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Where there is enough material to show that a part of the continuing offence which consists of several acts was committed within the local limits of P. S. Saunsar, this Court should refuse to interfere by invoking its inherent powers. ( 18. ) WITH the aforesaid legal principles and factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the FIR, the inevitable conclusion is that part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of Saunsar police station and as such the magistrate concerned, at Saunsar had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. ( 19. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. M. Cr. C. dismissed.