Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 260 (CHH)

OMPRAKASH SONI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2010-10-29

MANINDRA MOHAN SRIVASTAVA

body2010
ORDER : MANINDRA MOHAN SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. By this petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 965/05 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg arising out of Crime No. 36/05, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the petitioners is that Poonam Soni, wife of petitioner No. 1 Omprakash alleged that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and on a report lodged in Mahila Police Thana, Durg. offence u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners. The concerned police of Mahila Thana, Durg conducted investigation and a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that as no part of offence is alleged to have been committed within territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, the concerned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge-sheet filed by Mahila Police Thana, Durg. He further submits that the entire investigation conducted by Mahila Police Thana, Durg is without jurisdiction, as in view of the provisions contained in Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C, the police of Mahila Police Thana, Durg could not have enquired into the alleged commission of offence on the Court of complainant Poonam Soni as the Magistrate itself did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decisions in the cases of Kumari Chandrakar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2006) CriLJ 3822; Deepak Joshi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2009 Cri. LJ (NOC) 477 (All.) 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent State submitted that there is no illegality either in the investigation conducted by Mahalia Police Thana, Durg nor the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. It is further submitted that as part of offence was committed at Durg also, the concerned Magistrate does have the jurisdiction to take cognizance upon filing a charge-sheet before it by Mahila Police Thana, alleging commission of offence under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the IPC. It is further submitted that as part of offence was committed at Durg also, the concerned Magistrate does have the jurisdiction to take cognizance upon filing a charge-sheet before it by Mahila Police Thana, alleging commission of offence under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the IPC. Learned Counsel for the respondents further argues that after complainant Poonam was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners at Geedam she was brought back to her parental place at Durg where she was living and suffering agony. He also submits that an amount of Rs. 50,000 is alleged to have been paid to Omprakash at Durg, therefore, part of offence is also alleged to be committed at Durg and therefore the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence by taking cognizance upon filing of charge-sheet by Mahila Police Thana, Durg. 5. From the charge-sheet, it is divulged that a written report was lodged by the complainant Poonam Soni, wife of petitioner No. 1-Omprakash; to the Superintendent of Police, Durg on the basis of which, FIR was registered by Mahila Police Thana, Durg registering Crime No. 36/05 on alleged commission of offence u/s 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. From the allegations contained in the written complaint of complainant Poonam, it is revealed that the alleged offence of cruelty is committed in the matrimonial house at Geedam. From the case diary statement of Smt. Poonam Soni, Smt. Nisha Soni, Manoj Soni, Naresh Soni, Parvej Khan, Rajnish Agrawal and Prakash Dewangan also go to show that the entire illegations taken as it is disclosed that the entire cruelty is alleged to have been committed in the matrimonial house at Geedam. Though it has been stated in the diary statement of Poonam Soni that whatever was given at the time of marriage has not been returned and has been misappropriated, there is no specific statement as to on which date, where, by whom, the various items were alleged to be given at the time of marriage. It has also been stated that when the husband Omprakash Soni had come to Durg, he was given an amount of Rs. 50,000. That by itself would not constitute part of offence of cruelty under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 6. In the case of Pratap Chand Rathore and Others Vs. It has also been stated that when the husband Omprakash Soni had come to Durg, he was given an amount of Rs. 50,000. That by itself would not constitute part of offence of cruelty under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 6. In the case of Pratap Chand Rathore and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, (2006) 1 CGLJ 101 ; and Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Gurudeep Kaur and Others, (2007) CriLJ 4726, this Court has held that offence of cruelty is not continuing offence and the offence is triable by the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction of area wherein the cruelty is alleged to have been committed and not at the place wherein complainant wife resided with her parents. Thus, even if the allegation contained in the charge-sheet is taken to be true, the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Geedam and Court at Durg had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as from the facts disclosed by the complainant in the whole FIR and case diary statements, no part of cause of action against the petitioners arose at Durg. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, proceedings arising out of Crime No. 36/2005, registered at Mahila Police Thana, Durg pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. 965/05 insofar as they related to the present petitioners are hereby quashed. The charge-sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg shall be returned for being forwarded to the concerned police station at Geedam for taking appropriate action in accordance with law, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 82 (1999) DLT 26 (SC) : VIII (1999) SLT 392. 8. Petition is accordingly allowed.