Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 120 (AP)

Narender Raghuvanshi v. State of A. P.

2009-02-26

K.C.BHANU

body2009
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners A-1 to A-10 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 105 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Sangareddy, Medak District, which was registered of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet alleging that the complainant is the only daughter to her parents. On 28-11-2005 her marriage was held with one Narendra Raghuvamshi at Murmazpur village of Uttar Pradesh State and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs. 1,60,000/towards furniture, Rs. 65,000/- for bike, Rs. 60,000/- for cloths and also expended more than Rs. 4,00,000/- on the marriage. The bride spent two days at her in laws house and later went to attend her exams at Noida, but neither her husband nor in laws even telephone her and when her mother contacted, they put their demand to bring a new car and then only they will accept her. In the month of March, 2006 her parents gave Rs. 2,50,000/-. and thereafter her in laws accepted her in their house. But, her in laws including her husband again started harassment mentally and physically to sell their entire property and give the amount to them. Due to unbearable torture, she left their house and staying with her cousin brother's house at BHEL, RC puram. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that no part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh, that the complaint was mischievously filed in Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the Courts at Andhra Pradesh lacks inherent territorial jurisdiction to try the offences and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. He relied on a decision reported in Bhura Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan and another', wherein it was held thus: "The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the Stale of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed." 5. He also relied on another decision reported in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M. P. and another2, wherein it was held thus: "We therefore, are of the opinion that, interest of justice would be subserved, while setting aside the order of the High Court, if in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct transfer of the criminal case pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalapur. We accordingly do so." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2 respondent relied on a decision reported in Sistu Pullam Raju and another v. State of A. P. and another3, wherein it was held thus: "It may be mentioned that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not one of the parameters to be considered for quashing a case. Quashing the criminal proceedings, in my considered view, means annulling or overturning or declaring the proceedings as invalid. Once the proceedings are directed to be quashed, there remains no proceedings on the file of the Court. The complainant or the de facto complainant, who or at whose instance the proceedings are initiated will have to walk out of the Court. Well, when the allegations made against the accused inter alia in the proceedings amply disclose a prima facie case, it is quite incomprehensible as to why the case shall be quashed. If not the Court where the proceedings are initiated which lacks territorial jurisdiction, the allegations are to be tried before the appropriate Court elsewhere." 7. There cannot be any dispute that under Section 177 Cr. P. C. every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. If not the Court where the proceedings are initiated which lacks territorial jurisdiction, the allegations are to be tried before the appropriate Court elsewhere." 7. There cannot be any dispute that under Section 177 Cr. P. C. every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Under Section 178 Cr.P.C. (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed of (b) where an offence is committed partly, in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. From the above provision, it is clear that any act done within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class at Sangareddy with reference to the offence under Section 498-A IPC is alleged, then certainly if cannot be said that Court lacks inherent territorial jurisdiction. 8. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A I PC and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Under Section 498-A IPC whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means- "(a) any willful conduct which is of 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." 9. Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, if any person, after the commencement of this Act give or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be les than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. 10. 10. Under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, if any person demands directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he is liable punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to tent thousand rupees. 11. As seen from the material collected, marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent took place on 28-11-2005 at Harmajpur village of Uttar Pradesh State. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent lived with her husband at Saharanpur. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- as dowry and furniture and cash of Rs. 65,000/- for purchasing a bike and Rs. 60,000/-for the clothes were given. In the month of March, 2006, the petitioner has demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- towards purchase of car. The parents of the 2 respondent were settled along with the cousin brother of the 2 respondent, who is working as Constable in Central Industries Security Force, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram since 2006 onwards. It is the further case that finally in the month of January, 2006, the petitioner forced the 2 respondent out of the matrimonial home to bring money. She lodged a complaint with the Human Eights and Consumer Protection Cell alleging that her husband and in laws were harassing her mentally and physically for dowry. Therefore, if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Sangareddy. The place of residence does not confer any jurisdiction unless a case falls under Section 178 Cr.P.C. Even in Bhura Ramu's case (1 supra), the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complaint and if she so wishes, she may file the same in appropriate court. Similarly in Manish Ratan's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, transferred the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Data to the competent court having jurisdiction. So, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint need not be quashed. It would be a different matter if the allegations in the complaint taken together at this stage do not make out a prima facie case. So, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint need not be quashed. It would be a different matter if the allegations in the complaint taken together at this stage do not make out a prima facie case. In view of the fact that the police after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet, question of returning the charge sheet to file before the appropriate Court outside the jurisdiction may not arise. Similarly, this Court cannot transfer this case from the file of Judicial Magistrate of II Class at Sangareddy to anyone of the Courts having local jurisdiction where a part of cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the proper remedy for the police or the de facto complainant is to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of the case from Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class at Sangareddy to anyone of the competent Courts at Uttar Pradesh within whose local limits, a part of cause of action arose. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners/ respondents to move appropriate application before the Supreme Court.