Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 49 (CHH)

ANITA MAJUMDAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-02-28

T.P.SHARMA

body2008
ORDER 1. The applicants have preferred this petition for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 453/2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the non-applicant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant No.3. Applicants No.1 and 2 are the parents of applicant No.3 and the applicant No.4 is the brother of applicant No.3. They all are residents of Bhanupratappur District Kanker. Non-applicant No.2 Smt Ratna Majumdar was married to applicant No.3 Devashish Majumdar and she was residing with him at Bhanupratappur. The charge sheet and the charges framed against the applicants, reveal that non-applicant No.2 Smt. Ratna Majumdar was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the applicants. The matter was reported at Mahila Thana, Raipur. Crime No. 50/2002 was registered and after investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for an offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and after hearing the parties the charges under the said section were framed against the applicants. 3. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that the trial Court is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said case. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet filed against the applicants. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the non-applicant No.2 was married to the applicant No.3. All the applicants are the residents of Bhanupratappur District Kmlker. Non applicant No.2 was also residing with applicant No.3 as his wife at Bhanupratappur. According to the First Information Report and the charge sheet filed against the applicants, she was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the applicants at Bhanupratappur on account of demand of dowry, therefore, as per section 177 of the Code the Court at Bhanupratappur is competent and having the jurisdiction to try the case against the applicants and the Court at Raipur does not have such jurisdiction to do so. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this being a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence and the part of the offence was committed at Raipur, therefore, the Court at Raipur is also having the jurisdiction to try the case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this being a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence and the part of the offence was committed at Raipur, therefore, the Court at Raipur is also having the jurisdiction to try the case. It is also submitted that after the non-applicant No.2 was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the applicants, she came to her maternal house at Raipur perturbed mentally which continues even at Raipur, therefore, the court at Raipur is having the jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Section 177 of the Code deals with the ordinary place of incluiry and trial which reads as under: "177 - Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried ba Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed:" Charges framed against the applicants by the trial Court me as under: The aforementioned charge reveals that non-applicant No.2 was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the applicants at Bhanupratappur. 8. The statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code show that the offence under section 498-A/34 of the IPC was committed against the non-applicant No.2 at Bhanupratappur District Kanker only and no part c Cit was committed at Raipur. 9. In the matter of Sujata A1ukherjee (Smt.) Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee , it has been held by the Apex Court that case of allegation of dowry demand, ill-treatment, 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 offence. 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 do other Court subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code. to. 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 do other Court subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code. to. In the present case, even if we take the entire charge sheet as it is, there are no allegations that any part of the offence was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Raipur, that too when there is ample evidence to show that the entire incident took place at Bhanupratappur in district Kanker. 11. If we apply the principles laid down in the above case, it would appear that in fact no part of cause of action pertaining to the crime under section 498-A, arose beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of Bhanupratappur Court. In terms of section 177 and section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court at Raipur will have no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence vide the FIR of Crime No. 50/2002, registered at Manila Thana, Raipur. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and it is declared that the concerned Court of Magistrate at Raipur has no jurisdiction to deal with the present case vide Criminal Case No. 453/2002 (State Vs. Debashish and others) and the proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case arc hereby quashed. Petition Allowed.