Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 247 (CHH)

VAKIL KAPOOR v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-04-19

S.K.SINHA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. The petitioners (7 accused persons in Criminal Case No. 1091/ 2004) have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 19.10.2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 43/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G). The aforesaid criminal revision was filed against the order dated 13.4.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 1091/2004 by the C.J.M., Korba whereby the C.J.M. had dismissed an application filed by the petitioners U/S 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for return of the charge sheet filed against them U/S 498-A of the I.P.C. for presentation to the proper Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts are that at the instance of respondent no. 2, wife of petitioner no. 1, a first information report was lodged in police station, Korba for an offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners on 31.5.2004. The contents of F.I.R. are that respondent no.2 was married to petitioner no. 1, 3 years prior to lodging of the first information report. She makes allegations that just after 4 months of the marriage, her husband started demanding money from her father and on the pretext of the said demand, she was being treated with cruelty by the husband and other family members and on account of this, they left her in the house of her grand mother in village Godhna, Distt. Janjgir Champa and ultimately on 14th of March 2004, the petitioners refused to keep her in their family and, she was sent back to the house of her parents in village Manikpur, Distt. Korba where she is residing from the said date. It is after all this, the report dated 31.5.2004 was lodged by her in Police Station, Korba, Distt. Korba. On the basis of this report, the investigation commenced and thereafter a charge sheet was filed in the Court of concerned Magistrate at Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G). It appears that after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners filed an application U/S 177 Cr.P.C. raising the point that since the entire cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of Janjgir Champa, therefore, the Court at Korba will have no jurisdiction to entertain this case. A prayer was made that the charge sheet be returned for presentation to the proper court. A prayer was made that the charge sheet be returned for presentation to the proper court. This application was dismissed by the Magistrate on 13.4,2005 and it was held that the court at Korba is also having jurisdiction to entertain this matter. After the aforesaid order passed by the Magistrate, the criminal revision was filed which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2005 holding that the offence U/S 498-A of the I.P.C. is a continuing offence, therefore, the Court at Korba shall also have jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid criminal case. It is after this, the petitioners have filed the present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the contents of the charge sheet would show that the offence alleged was committed in village Khadtal which comes within territorial jurisdiction of criminal court at Janjgir Champa, therefore, the criminal court at Korba will have no jurisdiction to try this case. He submitted that a perusal of the entire charge sheet would show that no part of cause of action arose in Korba District, therefore, the orders passed by the two courts below cannot be sustained and the proceedings are required to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Sessions Judge has rightly taken this view that the offence U/S 498 "A I.P.C. would be a continuing offence and the court at Korba will also have jurisdiction to entertain the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length arid have also perused the records of the miscellaneous criminal case 6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides for ordinary place of enquiry and trial. It has been provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides for ordinary place of enquiry and trial. It has been provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial in relation to the offences when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. It has been provided that in all such cases the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, a conjoint reading of these two sections would show that the rule laid down by section 177 is one of the general applications and governs all criminal trials held under the provisions of the Code, subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code, whereas section 178 governs the exceptions as are provided therein. 7. Referring to the decisions rendered in the matter of Purushottamdas Dalmia Vs. State of West Bengal, L.N. Mukherjee Vs. State of Madras, Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and others Vs. Union of India and another and Mohan Baitha and others Vs. State of Bihar and another4, the Apex Court held in the matter of Y. Abhraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and. another, that the exception implied by the word "ordinarily" need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court. 8. Therefore, it is well settled that unless the exceptional circumstances are there as are embodied u/s 178 of Cr.P.C, the jurisdiction to try an offence shall be with the court within whose local limits, the offence was committed except where provided otherwise in the Code. 9. If we examine the F.I.R. and other materials in this case, it would appear that the allegations made by respondent no. 9. If we examine the F.I.R. and other materials in this case, it would appear that the allegations made by respondent no. 2 regarding demand of dowry and treating her with cruelty were pertaining to her stay in village Khadtal which comes within the local limits of territorial jurisdiction of Janjgir Champa. There is no whisper in this case that respondent no. 2 was treated with cruelty by the petitioners in village Manikptir, Distt Korba and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that any part of cause of action arose in village Manikpur and on due application of rules of section 177 Cr.P.C, the offence was ordinarily required to be tried by the Court at Janjgir Champa and not by the court at Korba unless any exception vide section 178 Cr.P.c. is shown to be attracted. 10. About the continuing offence, the Apex Court observed in the matter of State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi and another, referred to in the matter of Y. Abhraham Ajith (supra), that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which arises out of the failure to obey or comply with rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non-compliance Occurs or recurs, there is the offence committed. In the matter of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee', it has been held by the Apex Court that in case of allegation of dowry demand, illtreatment, humiliation at the house of the in-laws of the complainant when there was also an allegation against the husband that he had gone to the house of her parents and had assaulted her, in the said situation, Clause (c) of section 178 Cr.P.C. was attracted. That is to say that even if some part of the crime alleged against the accused is committed at some place other than the place where some part was earlier committed, then only, by virtue of section 178(c), Courts at both the places will have jurisdiction to try the offences. That is to say that even if some part of the crime alleged against the accused is committed at some place other than the place where some part was earlier committed, then only, by virtue of section 178(c), Courts at both the places will have jurisdiction to try the offences. But if there are no such allegations that any part of the crime was committed other than a particular place then the court of that particular place will alone have jurisdiction to try the offences and no other Court subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the view taken by the Sessions Judge that the alleged offence u/s 498-A was a continuing offence cannot be accepted. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when no part of cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of Korba Court, as per the allegations of the entire charge sheet, admittedly, the court at Korba will have no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence vide Criminal Case No. 1091/2004 and the trial Court as well as the revisional Court committed error of law by rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners in this regard. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the two courts below are set aside. The objection filed by the petitioners regarding territorial jurisdiction is allowed. It is held that the Court of Magistrate at Korba has no jurisdiction to deal with the present case. It is directed that the learned Magistrate shall return the charge sheet to the prosecution agency and if so advised, the prosecution may file the same in the appropriate court in accordance with law. Application Allowed.