Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 207 (PAT)

Shanker Dayal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-29

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2004 passed by Shri Ved Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1107 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also prayer for quashing the entire prosecution against the petitioner. 2. It appears that complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed a petitioner of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 4.9.2003 alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was performed with petitioner Shanker Dayal Singh as per Hindu custom on 29.6.2001 at Village- Kalyanpur in which her parents gave Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and ornaments etc. and thereafter she lived in her Sasural at Village-Dayalpur for seven days and thereafter returned back to her fathers place and from there her Bidai was performed by the petitioner, his brother and one Munshi and she was taken to the place of her husband at Dhanbad where he is a lawyer. It is said that at the time of Bidai her husband and husbands brother demanded Rs. 50,000/- and one Hero Honda Motorcycle from her parents who expressed their difficulty in meeting the demand and after great persuation the Bidai was performed in the month of January, 2002. At Dhanbad she was mentally and physically tortured for meeting the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda Motorcyle. At times she was assaulted also. She informed her parents who came to Dhanbad and tried to settle the matter but in vain. Her torture continued and ultimately on 25.6.2003 during evening hours the accused persons snatched her ornaments, clothes etc. and ousted her from the house. She somehow returned back to her Naihar and narrated the incident to her father who on 31.8.2003 went to Dhanbad and enquired about the incident but the accused did not listen him. It appears that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and three witnesses were examined during enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient materials for proceeding further against the petitioner and one other, ordered to issue summons against them for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per the allegation the entire occurrence of harassment and cruelty took place in the house of accused persons at Dhanbad and therefore, the criminal court at Samastipur has no jurisdiction to try the offence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 argued that unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and Hero Honda Motorcycle was made at Samastipur and therefore, the Court of Samastipur has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He also argued that the alleged occurrence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code comes within the purview of Section 178(c) of the Code as it is a continuing offence. 5. It is useful to read Section 498A IPC here:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 6. Now Clause-1 of explanation of Section 498A enacts that the harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property. Clause-b therefore does not make each and every harassment a cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. It appears from the allegations made in the complaint petition that at Samastipur the accused made demand of Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda Motorcycle and after persuation the Bidai was performed. Mere demand for property etc. but itself is not a cruelty. It appears from the allegations made in the complaint petition that at Samastipur the accused made demand of Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda Motorcycle and after persuation the Bidai was performed. Mere demand for property etc. but itself is not a cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing the woman to meet the demands that is cruelty. Admittedly all the acts of torture and cruelty were committed at Dhanbad. It is true that offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence in the sense that on each occasion on which the wife was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation. 7. In the present case as mentioned above, the entire occurrence of cruelty and harassment took place at Dhanbad. It is well settled that offences shall be tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the occurrence took place. It is not the case of the complainant that as a consequence of the acts of accused persons he has been suffering mental agony and pain living at Samastipur. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the cause of action arose at Dhanbad and therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to try the offence at Samastipur. 9. This application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance are hereby quashed. The complaint petition be returned to the opposite party no. 2 who, if she so desires, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.