Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

GURMEET SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2006-01-04

S.C.VYAS

body2006
( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 2-3-2005, passed by Judicial magistrate First Class, Indore in Cri. Case no. 864 of 2004, whereby the application filed by applicant accused under S. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected, hence applicant preferred this revision before this Court. ( 2 ) FACTS of the prosecution case in short are that complainant Ramnik Kaur who is resident of Ranchi (Jharkhand) was married to the applicant on 28-5-2001. The marriage of Ramnik Kaur was solemnized with applicant Gurmeet Singh on 28-5-2001 at patna. The applicant is permanent resident of S. P. Mukherjee Road, Murgasal, Asansole, district Vardhaman (W. B. ). After the marriage she had started living with her husband, mother-in-law Surjeet Kaur, sister in law Ravindra Kaur and Balvinder Kaur at asansole. She had lodged a first information report at Mahila Police Station, Indore on 2-8-2004 in which it has been alleged that just from the second day of the marriage her husband Gurmeet Singh, her mother-in-law Surjeet Kaur, sister-in-law ravindra Kaur and Bamnder Kaur started treated her with cruelty and demanded a santro Car and Rs. 50,000/ -. They have started beating the complainant and subjected to her with cruelty. In the meanwhile, complainant become pregnant. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws including her husband told her that she should go to her parental home for delivery, as they are not in a position to bear the expenses. The applicant husband Gurmeet Singh also disputes the legitimacy of the child in womb. She was sent to her parental home. She gave birth to a child. Even after intimation her husband and-in-laws did not take care of her and none of them have come to see her at Indore. ( 3 ) THE complainant and her mother went to the matrimonial house along with the relatives and tried to pacify the matter. But the applicant husband, and in-laws again started beating the complainant and demanded a Santro Car and cash amount. Her mother came there and she was sent back to her parental house in October, 2003. Ever since then she is residing at Indore. The applicant husband and her in-laws did not take care of her and child. In the meantime her mother also died. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the FIR Lodged by complainant, an offence under Ss. Ever since then she is residing at Indore. The applicant husband and her in-laws did not take care of her and child. In the meantime her mother also died. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the FIR Lodged by complainant, an offence under Ss. 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Penal Code has been registered at Police Station (Mahila Thana)Indore against the applicant husband. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, indore which was registered as Cri Case No. 864 of 2004. ( 5 ) DURING trial, an application under S. 177 of the Cr. P. C. was filed before the Trial court stating that the alleged offence has been committed only at Asansol (WB) and no part of it has been committed at Indore. Therefore Court at Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present offence against the applicant. ( 6 ) THE trial Magistrate after hearing arguments of both the sides, rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 2-3-2005. It is this order which is impugned in this revision. ( 7 ) LEARNED Sr. Advocate Shri Jaisingh with Shri Vivek Singh advocate has submitted that the act of cruelty as alleged by complainant has been committed only at Asonsol (WB) and not at Indore. There is not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituing an offence much less at Indore in the FIR and in the statement recorded by Police under S. 161 of Cr. P. C. That being so, the logic of S. 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied. He placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in the matter of y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, chennai, AIR 2004 SC 4286 : (2004 Cri LJ 4186 ). ( 8 ) THE learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was earlier resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand ). The marriage was solemnized at Patna (Bihar) and after the marriage she had started living with her husband and in-laws at Asansol. At the time of lodging the FIR she was/is residing at indore. The complaint alleging offences under Ss. 498-A and 406 etc. of Penal Code alleged to have taken place at Asansol. The complainant had left her husband's place and came to reside at Indore. At the time of lodging the FIR she was/is residing at indore. The complaint alleging offences under Ss. 498-A and 406 etc. of Penal Code alleged to have taken place at Asansol. The complainant had left her husband's place and came to reside at Indore. But the FIR does not disclose any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence at Indore. The logic of S. 178 (c) relating to continuing offences therefore does not apply. Therefore, no part of cause of action arose at Indore. Thus the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the alleged offences. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant cannot choose for her own convenience a criminal Court for trial of criminal offences. The alleged offence can only be tried by a competent criminal court where the alleged offence has been committed and where the cause of action arose. ( 10 ) THE learned G. A. Shri Ajay Kakani, per contra, submitted that the alleged offence of cruelty and harrasment as defined in S. 498-A of the Penal Code was committed in continuance even before the date of lodging the FIR in the Police Station. The complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home on account of failure to fulfil the demand of dowry made by the applicant husband and her-in-laws'. She was forced to leave her matrimonial home and threafter she is residing at Indore with her uncle. Thus, according to him the mental harasment is in continuance, as her husband and other relations are not taking care of her and child. He further submitted that on account of continuance of the offence, the Trial magistrate has the jurisdiction to try the alleged offence and the impugned order is rightly passed by the Trial Magistrate. ( 11 ) I have gone through the FIR lodged by the complainant. On perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment and demand of dowry was also made at Asansol only. She was forced to leave her matrimonial place on account of failure to fulfill the said demand of dowry. ( 11 ) I have gone through the FIR lodged by the complainant. On perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment and demand of dowry was also made at Asansol only. She was forced to leave her matrimonial place on account of failure to fulfill the said demand of dowry. She has started to reside at Indore since October, 2003, and thereafter at Indore not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence has been committed or demand of dowry was made continuously by the applicant husband. ( 12 ) THE facts of the present case are quite similar to the referred case of Y. Abraham (2004 Cri LJ 4186) (supra ). In para 11 the apex Court has held that "in the present case the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 15-4-1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of S. 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied. " ( 13 ) IN the present case also the complainant had left the matrimonial place on account of demands of dowry and thereafter no allegations about demand of dowry and commission of cruelty or harassment was made. Therefore in the present case also the logic of S. 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied. ( 14 ) THIS Court has also considered the application of Ss. 177 and 178 of the Code in respect of the offence under S. 498-A read with S. 34 of the Penal Code in the matter of shakuntala Sharma v. State of M. P. , reported in 2005 (3) MPLJ 338 : (2005 Cri LJ 89 ). In this case also the demand of dowry was made at Bholpal, whereas the FIR was lodged by the complainant at Police Station chhatarpur and the charge-sheet was filed at Chhatarpur. In this case also the demand of dowry was made at Bholpal, whereas the FIR was lodged by the complainant at Police Station chhatarpur and the charge-sheet was filed at Chhatarpur. The learned single Judge of this Court relying upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham ajith's case (supra) held that the Criminal court of Chhatarpur has no jurisdiction to try the alleged offences against the accused. ( 15 ) THE learned G. A. has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the matter of Bhagsingh Jawaharsingh Vadhwa v. Sunita Harikishan Chugh ( 1995 MPLJ 1037 ): (1995 AIHC 5226 ). In this case the facts were different from the case in hand. In the referred case it was found that the wife was harassed and assaulted for not meeting demand of dowry and then forced to leave her matrimonial house at Panipat in Haryana state and stayed at her parents' place of residence at Rajgarh in Madhya Pradesh with the object to meet demand of dowry and her failure to meet the said demand. The harassment continued at the place of residence of her father where the complainant was residing at the time of filing of the complaint. The offence was a continuing one and in view of S. 178 (c) of the Cr. P. C. which inter alia provides that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. The court at Rajgarh had therefore Jurisdiction to try the offence. But now looking to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra) no act of harassment or demand of dowry has been committed at Indore and was in continuance. Therefore it cannot be held in the facts and eircumstances of the present case that the act of the accused persons was continuing offence, as per provisions of S. 178 (c) of Cr. P. C. ( 16 ) THUS from the aforesaid discussion and following the principles laid down in Y. Abraham Ajith's case, the impugned order passed by trial Magistrate deserves to be quashed. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by Trial Magistrate dated 2-3-2005 is hereby quashed. P. C. ( 16 ) THUS from the aforesaid discussion and following the principles laid down in Y. Abraham Ajith's case, the impugned order passed by trial Magistrate deserves to be quashed. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by Trial Magistrate dated 2-3-2005 is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to return the challan papers to the concerned Police for filing it before the competent Criminal Court. Revision allowed. .