Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 697 (RAJ)

Kumari Suman v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-28

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 481/ 2004, whereby the trial Court framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioners have filed the instant revision. 2. Thefacts, in a nut shell, are that complainant Smt. Suman filed a complaint stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Vaijayant Kumar on 16.07.1997 at Paniwala, Tehsil and district Abohar (Punjab). However, in her statement under Section 161 of the code, she stated that the marriage was solemnized on 16.07.1997 at village Likhmisar according to Hindu customs and rites with Vaijayant Kumar and her father gave the cash amount of Rs. 51,000/-and other dowry articles mentioned in the report. She categorically stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to her husband and father-in-law. It has further been alleged that after one year of marriage, her husband Vaijayant Kumar, father-in-law Krishna Lal, Sisters-in-law Kumari Suman, Kumari Satya and Smt. Anupama (Petitioners No. 1 to 3) and brother-in-law Lokpal (Petitioner No.4) started quarrelling with her on account of insufficient dowry and made a demand of Rs. 50,000/-in cash, colour television, motorcycle etc. It was further alleged that she was to deliver a child and, therefore, she came to her parental house where she gave birth to a child. For about six months, no body came to take her and she continued to live at her parental house. However, subsequently, her father and maternal uncle brought her to in-laws house and left her there. The cruel treatment remained continue by the members of her in-laws with her and for this, community Panchayats were held but they refused to keep her and also declined to return her articles. The said complaint was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. After investigation, the police filed Challan. The trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned and the Challan papers. 4. After investigation, the police filed Challan. The trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned and the Challan papers. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no cause of action arose to the complainant with the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh and as no offence has been committed by the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of Pilibanga, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Vaijayant Kumar on 16.07.1997 at Paniwala, Tehsil and district Abohar (Punjab). It has further been contended that Petitioner No.3 Smt. Anupama is a married lady and has been residing with her husband at her matrimonial house and merely because she occasionally visits to her parental house, she has been falsely roped in the case. So far as Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are unmarried college- going girls and have been falsely implicated. Petitioner No. 4 Lokpal is the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant, who is residing with his father and has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant, submitted that the marriage between the complainant and Vaijant Kumar was solemnized at Likhmisar, Tehsil Pilibaga, district Hanumangarh and the dowry articles were handed over to the complainants husband and father-in-law at Likmisar, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Pilibanga. After entrusting the dowry articles to them, a specific demand was made but they failed to return, therefore, the offence for criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, IPC is prima facie made out. It has further been submitted that not only in the statement of the complainant, but also in the statements of other witnesses, viz. Smt. Rajbala, Gopi Ram, Satpal, Kashi Ram, Ram Gopal, Balveer Singh, Anokh Singh etc., recorded under Section 161 of the Code, they have categorically stated that the complainant was used to be harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law (Petitioners No. 1 to 3) and brother-in-law (Petitioner No. 4 ) in connection with bringing insufficient dowry. 6. Smt. Rajbala, Gopi Ram, Satpal, Kashi Ram, Ram Gopal, Balveer Singh, Anokh Singh etc., recorded under Section 161 of the Code, they have categorically stated that the complainant was used to be harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law (Petitioners No. 1 to 3) and brother-in-law (Petitioner No. 4 ) in connection with bringing insufficient dowry. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. From the statements of complainant Suman, her parents Kashi Ram and Smt. Rajbala, maternal-grand-father Gopi Ram, maternal-uncle, Ram Gopal, Balveer Singh and Anokh Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Code, what is prima facie established is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Vaijayant Kumar at Likhmisar, Tehsil Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh. It is also prima facie established that after marriage, complainants husband, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law used to harass her in connection with bringing insufficient dowry and also demanded more dowry. 8. The pertinent question arises for consideration is whether the Court at Pilibanga is having jurisdiction to try the case. From the evidence on record, it is prima facie established that the complainant was being harassed and subjected to cruel treatment by her husband, father-in-law and the present petitioners. The allegation of harassment and cruel treatment is after the marriage when the complainant started living at her in laws house situated at Paniwala, Tehsil and district Abohar (Punjab). It is not the case of the complainant that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment at Likhmipur, Tehsil Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). In this view of the matter, the trial Court at Pilibanga, is having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A cannot be sustained. 9. InY. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134, while explaining the meaning of cause of action, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-"The expression cause of action is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. Thus, it consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a Court of law. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself . Compendiously, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the Judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises, in cause of action." 10. It was further held by the Honble Apex Court that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the proceedings were quashed. 11. Theinstant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai (Supra). In the instant case, no cause of action, even a part of cause of action, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh, and, therefore, the Court at Pilibanga had no jurisdiction to try the case. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No. 481/2004, framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is set aside. The proceedings against the petitioners are quashed and the petitioners are discharged of the offence. The stay petition stands disposed of .