Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 5 (PAT)

Ramji Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-02

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-5-2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Digha P. S. Case No. 138 of 2000, whereby the prayer made by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected. 2. Case started on the basis of a written report given by Opposite parly No. 2, Neelam Kumari Singh, hereinafter referred to as the Informant, which led to registration of Digha P.S. Case No. 138 of 2000. According to the informant, she was married to petitioner No. 3 Dhermendra Singh on 14-5-1997 according to Hindu rites. Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 happen to be her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively and according to the allegation prior to the marriage a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 (Eighty thousand) was paid to her father-in-law and at the time of marriage ornaments and clothes worth Rs. 65,000.00 (Sixty five thousand) were also given. After the marriage, according to the report, informant went to her matrimonial home at a village in the district of Balia in the State of Uttar Pradesh and after a week the petitioners and other persons came in her room and asked her to demand from her father a Motor-cycle, Colour Television and a sum of Rs. One lakh. On the informants refusal, she was assaulted by the petitioners. It has been further alleged that attempt was made to set her on fire but because of the intervention of the villagers, she was saved. According to the allegation, her brother came to her matrimonial home for taking her to her parents place (Vidagiri), she was not allowed to meet him and on great persuasion she came to Patna with her brother. 3. Further allegation in the First Information Report is that in the month of December, 1997 her second marriage (Gouna) was performed in which informants father gave to her husband a sum of Rs. 35,000.00 . Still her father-in-law demanded further dowry and threatened that in case the demand is not met, he will marry his son with another girl. Informant further alleged that she was assaulted by her husband when she was pregnant and by fraud he got her pregnancy aborted. 35,000.00 . Still her father-in-law demanded further dowry and threatened that in case the demand is not met, he will marry his son with another girl. Informant further alleged that she was assaulted by her husband when she was pregnant and by fraud he got her pregnancy aborted. It was further alleged that on 4-7-1999 she was assaulted and after obtaining signature on plain paper she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and threatened that in case she returns back she will be killed. 4. According to the informant, she came to Patna and on 17-11 -1999 her father died. After her fathers death, according to the informant, her father-in-law demanded cash and Articles as a condition to take her to matrimonial home and on its failure, to take divorce so that he can many his son again. On the basis of the aforesaid report Digha P.S. Case No. 138 of 2000 was registered under Sec. 498 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. During the trial petitioners filed application for discharge, inter alia, on the ground that no offence either under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out. The learned Magistrate finding sufficient grounds for framing charge and proceeding against the petitioners, by the impugned order rejected their prayer. 6. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners assails the impugned order only on the ground that the entire occurrence having taken place in the district of Balia in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate before whom the petitioner are facing trial and this itself vitiates the impugned order. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. -, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment which reads as follows : A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee V/s. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee -. There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Secs. 498A, 506 and 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Secs. 498A, 506 and 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier, the husband of the complainant went to the place,where the complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This Court held in that factual background that Clause (c) of sec. 178 was 1 attracted. But 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 al-legations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much, less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of sec. 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied. 7. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu - and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 14 of the judgment which reads as follows : Having regard to the above facts viz, background and history of litigation, the prima facie view taken by us on the point of territorial jurisdiction and taking an overall view of the convenience of both the parties. We are of the view that the criminal case arising out of CC No. 72/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapally and the Matrimonial Case filed by the husband (first petitioner in the Appeal No. (Sic) 372/2005, corresponding to SLP 5735 of 2003) at Mumbai should both be tried in Chennai. The criminal case shall be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapally to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chennai who may either decide it himself or assign it to one of the Judicial Magistrates in Chennai. The MJ petition No. A 416/2003 pending in the Family Court at Bandra. Mumbai shall be transferred to the Principal Family Court at Chennai. Both these cases shall be decided expeditiously without avoidable delay. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Ramesh and three others and the Transfer Petition are disposed of. The appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 290 of 2004 filed by Gauri Ramaswamy and another is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings insofar as Gauri Ramaswamy is concerned. No costs. Both these cases shall be decided expeditiously without avoidable delay. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Ramesh and three others and the Transfer Petition are disposed of. The appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 290 of 2004 filed by Gauri Ramaswamy and another is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings insofar as Gauri Ramaswamy is concerned. No costs. 8. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Najmul Hoda, representing Opposite party No. 2, however, contend that the offence is a continuing one and the plea taken by the petitioners that no part of the offence was committed within the local area of the learned Magistrate who had taken cognizance of the offence is unfounded on fact. In this connection they have drawn my attention to the allegation made in the First Information Report, wherein it has been clearly stated that after she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and when she came to Patna her father-in-law visited several times and put conditions of payment of cash and delivery of other articles as condition precedent for taking her to matrimonial home. It has been further alleged that he threatened to get his son married the second time in case demands are not fulfilled. This clearly shows that the demand of dowry was made at Patna and the Informant was also threatened there and in that view of the mailer, the offence alleged to have been committed was partly in one local area and partly in another local area i.e. Patna and further offence committed consisted of several acts done in different local areas. In the background aforesaid in my opinion the provisions of sec. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted and petitioners can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sujata Mukhcrjhee V/s. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee - in which it has been held as follows : Despite service being effected on the private respondents, no one has appeared for any of the accused respondents. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sujata Mukhcrjhee V/s. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee - in which it has been held as follows : Despite service being effected on the private respondents, no one has appeared for any of the accused respondents. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant at the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion. one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, Clause (c) of sec. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps should be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed. 9. Now I revert to the authority relied on by Mr. Singh. In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith - (supra), on fact the Supreme Court found that the complainant herself left the house of the husband on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relation and thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting any offence within the local area over which the learned Magistrate, before whom trial was pending had jurisdiction. I In the background of the said fact the Supreme Court found that sec. 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted. Here In the present case. it has been specifically alleged that after the informant left the matrimonial home and was residing at her parents place which is within the local area of the Magistrate before whom the petitioners are facing trial, demand of dowry was made and she was also threatened that In case ft is not met second marriage of her husband shall be performed. Thus the offence has been committed in more than one local area and it consists of several acts and as such can be tried by a Court having Jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. 10. Thus the offence has been committed in more than one local area and it consists of several acts and as such can be tried by a Court having Jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. 10. Sofaras the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh and others - (supra) is concerned, same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case the prosecution was not quashed on the ground of lack of territorial Jurisdiction, but taking into account the background and history of litigation, prima facie view on the point of territorial Jurisdiction and convenience of the party, the case was transferred to a different place for trial. Hence this case in no way advances the cases of the petitioners. 11. In the result. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly.