Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 418 (MAD)

Umesh Chandra Dalai & Others v. Pratira Sahani @ Manju & Others

2010-01-29

C.T.SELVAM

body2010
Judgment :- The petitioners seek a direction under Section 186 Cr.P.C. towards discontinuance of the proceedings in S.C.No.325 of 2003 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa State. 2. One Mrs.Amrutha Dalai expired on 27.12.2001 and apparently, the death was one of suicide by hanging. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the deceased, 2nd petitioner is the mother, 3rd petitioner is the brother, 4th petitioner is the father and 5th petitioner is the sister of the 1st petitioner respectively. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. 3. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent preferred on 29.12.2001, enquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate under Sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C and the report was forwarded to the investigating agency, on which basis, the case was altered to one for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, charges were laid for offences under Sections 498-A and 304 B IPC r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and the same is pending committal in P.R.C No.27 of 2004. Charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners 1 to 3 herein. Though the petitioners have much to complain of regarding the manner in which the complaint came to be registered against them and the influence exerted by the 2nd respondent who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police of Berhampur, the question for consideration before this Court is whether, given pendency of the case in P.R.C.No.27 of 2004 relating to the death of Mrs.Amrutha Dalai, a subsequent complaint relating to the same occurrence wherein all the petitioners herein stand arrayed as accused for alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w. 34 IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 304(B) IPC, is to be continued with or not. 4. Section 186 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place. 4. Section 186 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place. Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided - (a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court; (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued." 5. In the case on hand, we find that on the basis of complaint preferred on 29.12.2001 relating to the death of Mrs.Amrutha Dalai, due investigation has been conducted by the 3rd respondent and charge sheet has been laid as above stated against the petitioners 1 to 3. The complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Berahmpur, Ganjam District, Orissa State in respect of the death of the very same person and alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w. 34 IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 304(B) IPC has been laid against all the petitioners herein on 26.07.2002. 6. A perusal of such complaint shows that certain averments and allegations have made therein towards informing why the complainant suspected the hand of the accused/petitioners herein in the death of the girl. We find that but for the inclusion of the petitioners 4 and 5 as accused in the complaint case, the offences alleged in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent as also those informed in the charge sheet filed upon completion of investigation by the 3rd respondent police are substantially the same. We also find that the deceased girl and the 1st petitioner have resided at Chennai and that the death of the wife of the 1st petitioner also occurred therein. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the 4th petitioner is a retired person who has undergone by-pass surgery and both, he and his wife are not in good health, that such petitioners are residing at Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa which is at a distance of approximately 500 kms. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the 4th petitioner is a retired person who has undergone by-pass surgery and both, he and his wife are not in good health, that such petitioners are residing at Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa which is at a distance of approximately 500 kms. from Berhampur and that they are put to great inconvenience and hardship in having to face proceedings both before the Court at Berhampur as also in the proceedings pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. It is represented that since the 1st petitioner is residing at Chennai, he would be in a position to look after his parents if proceedings were only at the Court at Chennai. Attention is drawn to the charge sheet filed by the 3rd respondent which reflects that all witnesses except one witness belong to Chennai. It is represented that it would be to the convenience of all concerned to restrict the proceedings to the case pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. Attention also is drawn to the order of the Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa State which, in a petition filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 herein for relief under Section 210 Cr.P.C seeking transfer of the case pending before the Berhampur Court to the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai has observed that the situation could be taken care of with the aid of Section 186 Cr.P.C by moving the appropriate forum where criminal proceedings has first commenced. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 186 (b) Cr.P.C. There is no dispute that the proceedings were first initiated at Chennai. The 1st petitioner as also the deceased wife have resided at Chennai and the death has occurred at Chennai. The 1st petitioner as also the deceased wife have resided at Chennai and the death has occurred at Chennai. When a detailed investigation has been completed by the 3rd respondent police and such police have laid a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498-A and 304 B IPC r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act i.e., offences which are substantially the same as those sought to be made out in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, Ganjam, and where the prosecution case is to be proved by the examination of witnesses several of whom are available at Chennai and also on consideration of the ground of health and convenience urged on behalf of the petitioners, it would be proper to exercise power under Section 186 (b) Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, this Court directs that the proceedings in S.C.No.325 of 2003 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa State shall be discontinued. It is noticed that while the 3rd respondent police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners 1 to 3 herein, the complaint before the Berhampur Court arrays also the petitioners 4 and 5 herein as accused. If in the course of trial of the case at Chennai, the involvement of other accused persons is made out, it would be open to the trial Court to proceed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be proper to permit the respondents 1 and 2 to assist the prosecution in the trial, if they choose so to do. 11. The Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.