Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 299 (JHR)

Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-25

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
Order In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of taking cognizance and issuing summons dated 22.12.2004 including the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 974 of 2004. 2. The case of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 in the court below was that she was married according to the Hindu rites and customs with the petitioner on 1.7.1998. When she went to her matrimonial home, initially there was peaceful life. After sometime the petitioner alongwith other accused persons started demanding colour T.V., fridge, motorcycle and Rs. One lakh as dowry. When the same could not be fulfilled by the parents of the complainant, the accused persons started torturing her mentally and physically. The complainant lodged a complaint which was numbered as 485 of 2004. In the said case the accused persons pretended to mend and wanted to come to a mutual settlement. On the said assurance the complainant filed a petition under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was disposed of. After the case was disposed of, the accused-petitioner backed out and did not take the complainant to his place and again renewed his demands causing torture and cruelty. The complainant was forced to stay with her parents at Kumardhubi. 3. Learned court below on the basis of the complaint, statement in solemn affirmation and other materials on record passed order dated 22.12.2004 issuing summons upon the accused-petitioner. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the following grounds:- (i) This is the second complaint on the same allegation and as such is not maintainable. (ii) The complainant resides with her parents at Kumardhubi, District Dhanbad and the petitioner is the resident of Kulti, District-Burdwan (West Bengal). The cause of action earlier arose at the matrimonial home on the allegation of demand of dowry. The court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad has got no territorial jurisdiction. 5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that since the allegation of demand of dowry-and cruelty was initially made at Kulti in the District of Burdwan, West Bengal, subsequent allegation of not taking the complainant by the petitioner to his place and causing torture does not form any basis for taking cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned court below has committed error in issuing summons to the petitioner. Learned court below has committed error in issuing summons to the petitioner. He submitted that the court at Dhanbad lacks territorial jurisdiction and the said case is not maintainable. Since it is second complaint on almost the same allegation, on that ground also cognizance of the case and order issuing summons are bad and illegal. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. VS. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. [2005(1) JCR 15 (SC)], Manish Ratan & Ors. VS. State of M.P. & Anr. [2007(1) Supreme Court Cases 262]. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Radhe Raman Naik & Anr. VS. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [2007(4) East Cr. C. 244(Jhr.)]. 6. Learned AP.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer and submitted that it would be evident from the complaint petition that the petitioner-husband earlier maliciously got the complaint disposed of on the false assurance that he will keep the complainant with him with all convenience and dignity. When the case was disposed of, the petitioner-husband took a U-turn and started demanding the said articles and the amount in dowry. He has been also threatening the complainant with dire consequences and subjecting her to mental torture and cruelty. The instant complaint has been made after the husband-petitioner again started demanding dowry and causing mental harassment and torture within the jurisdiction of the court below at Kumardhubi where the complainant is staying with her parents. Thus, a fresh cause of action has arisen in view of revival of the misbehaviour of the petitioner. Learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order issuing summons on the basis of the said material on record. Since the fresh cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of learned court below, it does not lack jurisdiction of taking cognizance and issuing summon for said offence against the petitioner. This petition has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts, documents and materials on record. On going through the complaint petition I find that earlier the opposite party No.2 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner. This petition has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts, documents and materials on record. On going through the complaint petition I find that earlier the opposite party No.2 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner. On the assurance of the petitioner that he was eager to restore happy conjugal life and he will keep the complainant-wife with all care and convenience and will maintain good relationship, the complainant did not chose to proceed further and filed petition to that effect under Section 203, Cr.P.C. The case was disposed of. When the case was closed the petitioner again revived his said malicious demand and started causing mental torture to the complainant. He also did not take the complainant to his place. The breach of assurance and the fresh demand coupled with forcing the wife to stay with her parents at Kumardhubi give rise a fresh cause for the complaint. 8. The learned court below has properly considered the said aspect and found sufficient ground for issuing summons to the petitioner. In view of the said fresh cause of action arising at Kumardhubi within the territorial jurisdiction of learned court below, learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order. 9. I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The decisions in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors., Manisn Ratan & Ors. and Radhe Raman Naik & Anr. (supra) are rendered on different facts. The cause of action in those cases arose at a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance, the same are not applicable to the facts of the instant case in which there is clear statement of pressing for demand and torture against the complainant at her parents' place at Kumardhubi which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below. 11. There is no merit in this petition. This Cr.M.P. is dismissed.