Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 593 (RAJ)

Richard Bahulayan v. State

2005-02-22

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2005
Judgment Khem Chand Sharma, J.-The petitioners are facing trial before the trial Court for offence under Section 498-A, IPC. The trial Court vide order dated 21.01.2004 framed charge against them for offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Challenging this order of the learned trial Court, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, which was transferred to learned Judge, Special Court SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota. The revisional Court vide order dated 01.06.2004 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners for setting aside orders of the Courts below as well as for quashing the proceedings pending against them. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned P.P. 3. Mr. S.S. Hora learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the allegations in the FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC. Has strenuously contended that no offence can be said to be made out at Kota as there is no allegation in the FIR or in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC, to the effect that complainant Smt. Sandra Bahulayan was subjected to any cruelty at Kota. On the basis of these documents learned Counsel has contended that there was no occasion with the learned trial Court at Kota to entertain the complaint and to frame charge against the petitioners in as much as no cause of action had arisen at Kota. To support his arguments learned Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of the different High Courts:- .(1) Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 (3) Crimes 227 (SC); .(2) Mr. Rajaram Venkatesh & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Anr., 1993 (2) Crimes 208 (AP); (3) Jatinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 1993 (2) Crimes 595 (P&H); (4) Mohan Lal & Ors. vs. State, 2000 CrLJ 3762 and (5) T. Venkateshwarlu & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 1999 CrLJ .39. 4. I have carefully gone through the case laws cited at the bar. In none of the authorities referred to above the provisions of Section 179, CrPC, have been considered. Only the provisions of Sections 177 and 178, CrPC, were taken into consideration. 5. vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 1999 CrLJ .39. 4. I have carefully gone through the case laws cited at the bar. In none of the authorities referred to above the provisions of Section 179, CrPC, have been considered. Only the provisions of Sections 177 and 178, CrPC, were taken into consideration. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointing out the allegations made in the first information report as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC, which have been placed on record by learned Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that there are allegations of cruelty with the complainant at Kota also. Thus, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor would be that in view of the allegations of cruelty at Kota and in view of provisions of Section 179, CrPC, the Court at Kota has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to proceed against the petitioners. .6. Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of impugned orders of the Courts below and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that following two questions would require adjudication. .(i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material before the trial Court, the charge under Section 498-A, IPC, could have been framed? .(ii) Whether the Court at Kota has got jurisdiction to try the petitioners? 7. To decide the first question it would be useful to go through the provisions of Section 498-A, IPC. Explanation (a) appended to Section 498-A defines `cruelty to mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (wehther mental or physical) of the woman. A bare look of the provisions of Explanation (a) appended to Section 498-A, IPC, would indicate that if a person is found guilty of any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, he can be punished for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC during investigation be taken into consideration in the light of Explanation (a) appended to Section 498-A, IPC, I am of the view that there is no error either in the order of the trial Court framing charge under Section 498-A or in the order of the revisional Court upholding the charge framed against the petitioners as there are sufficient allegations in the FIR and in the statements to make out a prima facie case attracting ingredients of Section 498-A, IPC. 8. Now comes the second question. To decide whether the Court at Kota has got territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners or not, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Section 179, CrPC which reads as follows:- 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." 9. The Section is in the nature of exception to the general rule that every offence shall be enquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It provides that an act is an offence by reason of consequence which has ensued therefrom, the offence may be enquired into or tried by Court within whose local jurisdiction the act was committed or the consequence has ensued. There can be no doubt that the act and its consequence must be so interlinked that the consequence is the direct result of the Act. Where the wife is forced to leave her husband/in-laws house there can be no doubt that her leaving the house is the direct result or consequence of conduct and, therefore, an integral part. There can be no doubt that the act and its consequence must be so interlinked that the consequence is the direct result of the Act. Where the wife is forced to leave her husband/in-laws house there can be no doubt that her leaving the house is the direct result or consequence of conduct and, therefore, an integral part. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the FIR, which is as follows : ÞrRipkr eqfYte 2 o 3 vU; vknfe;ksa us dksVk vkdj ekjihV djds mlds iq= dks mBkdj ys tkus ij ifjoknh ds }kjk fjiksVZ ntZ djokus o eqfYte ds }kjk Hkfo"; esa fdlh rjg dh Øwjrk vkfn u djus dk svkoklu nsus ij ifjoknh dks jkthukek djds vius lkFk ys x;A bl rjg ls 21-09-1997 dks ifjoknh iuq% eqfYte ds lkFk xqtjkr jgus yxh ijUrq iqu% eqfYte uEcj 1 fYte dk ogh O;ogkj gS vkSj eqfYte uEcj 3 eqds lg;ksx ls ifjoknh dks dky xyZ dk /kU/kk djus ds fy, etcwj djus yxs bl ij eqfYte dh ckr ekudj eqfYte us ifjoknh dks nks ckj ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k vr% fnukad 12-01-2000 dks ifjoknh eqfYte uEcj 1] 2 o 3 dh Øwjrk ls ijskku gksdj xqtjkr ls dksVk nksuksa cPpksa lfgr vius firk ds ikl HkkbZ ds lkFk vkbZ dqN fnu ifjoknh ds jgus ds ipkr~ fnukad 29-07-2002 dks eqfYte vius 2&3 vU; vknfe;ksa ds lkFk dksVk vkdj tcjnLrh ifjoknh ds nksuksa cPpksa dks ys x;s rFkk ifjoknh ds ifr ds lkFk gksus ds dkj.k tc ifjoknh }kjk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ xbZ rks cPpksa dk ifjoknh ds ifr ds ikl gksus ds dkj.k ifjoknh dh fjiksVZ Hkh ntZ ugha dh xbZA 7- ;g fd ifjoknh ds fo#) fd, x;s ekufld o kkjhfjd ÑR;kas ls eqfYte dk mDr ÑR; /kkjk 498&,] 323] 341 vkbZ-ih-lh ds fo#) n.Muh; vijk/k gSAß 10. Thus, from the material on record it is clear that in the instant case, the complainant has alleged that by reasons of the conduct of the accused persons, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. If the act of cruelty had not been committed and there was no danger to her life and health, there perhaps would have been no occasion for her to leave the house. In the facts and circumstances of the case term cruelty in Section 498-A has to be given an extended meaning. If the act of cruelty had not been committed and there was no danger to her life and health, there perhaps would have been no occasion for her to leave the house. In the facts and circumstances of the case term cruelty in Section 498-A has to be given an extended meaning. If the woman continues to suffer the mental agony or torture as a result of the acts done to her by the husband and his relatives forcing her to leave the matrimonial home, it must be said that the cruelty is continuing. While construing the question of jurisdiction with respect of offence under Section 498-A one should not forget the social background and the object for which the said offence has been created. This new penal provision is intended to provide benefit and relief to the females who constitute the weaker section of the society, the destitutes who have been turned out of the husbands home. If they are to be compelled to file the complaint only at the place where the act was committed, that is, at the place where the husband/in-laws reside, she may not be able to prosecute the complaint properly which will not serve the desired object. 11. Thus, from the contents of the FIR and the allegations made by the complainant and the witnesses in their statements under Section 161, CrPC, it must be concluded that the Court at Kota has got jurisdiction of try the present case in view of the provisions of Sections 177, 178 and 179, CrPC. It must also be concluded that the trial Court, on the basis of evidence and material on record, has rightly framed charge under Section 498-A, IPC. I do not see any error or illegality in the order framing charge. 12. In the result, this petition fails and is, hereby dismissed.