Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 455 (MP)

Pawan Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2010-04-21

V.C.MAHESHWARI

body2010
ORDER 1. The applicants/accused preferred this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the first information report dated 20.7.2009 registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against them as Crime No. 130/ 09 at Police Station Badi Tahsil Bareli, District Raisen for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of 'Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Applicants counsel after taking me through papers of the charge-sheet placed on record argued that as per averments of the first information report lodged by respondent No. 2 at Police Station Badi and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses after solemnized her marriage with applicant No.1 on 4.7.2007 at Madan Mahal Jabalpur initially she resided' in her matrimonial home with the applicants at Madan Mahal Jabalpur. As alleged on account of demand of dowry she was being ill treated with cruelty by the applicants. In such premises in view of section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code, the trial of the case could be held only at Jabalpur and the Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the police station of Badi did not have any jurisdiction to take the cognizance in the impugned case or to proceed with the trial. In continuation, he said that according to latter part of such report on dated 17.12.2008, when she was at her parental home at Badi, the applicants No.1, 5 and 6 her husband, sister-in-law and brother-in-law came there and by making demand of dowry committed cruelty with her. Therefore, in any case except these three applicants no other applicant could be prosecuted for the alleged offence, in the present trial Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the Police Station Badi. In support of such contention by placing his reliance on section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code he prayed for quashment of the FIR and the entire proceedings based on it, in alternate he prayed to quash the same till the extension of applicants No.2 to 4. 3. In support of such contention by placing his reliance on section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code he prayed for quashment of the FIR and the entire proceedings based on it, in alternate he prayed to quash the same till the extension of applicants No.2 to 4. 3. On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments Shri Vijay Pandey, learned appearing counsel of the respondent No.2 by referring the case laws in the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 (2) JLJ 59 = AIR 1997 SC 2465 , said that as per averments of the first information report, subsequent to marriage all the applicants committed alleged cruelty with the respondent No.2 at Madan Mahal Jabalpur, and in continuation of the same applicant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 also committed such cruelty with her on 17.12.2008 by making demand of dowry at her parental home, Badi. Accordingly, the alleged offence has been committed by the applicants in continuation at two places i.e. Madan Mahal and Badi both. Therefore, in view of the provision of section 178 (b), (c) and (d) of Criminal Procedure Code the Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the Police Station Badi is also empowered to take the cognizance of the matter and proceed with the trial. In continuation, he said that mere on the ground that some of the applicants/accused committed the alleged offence at Badi, the remaining applicants could not be benefited on this ground by quashing the FIR or the trial of the case and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 4. Having heard the parties on perusing the police report, the first information report and other papers of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that as per allegation after solemnization of the alleged marriage on 4.7.2007 the complainant the respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial home with the applicant No. 1 and resided in the family of applicants where she was being ill-treated by the applicants on account of demand of dowry and thereby they committed cruelty with her as name of the applicants with their alleged act are mentioned in the first information report and also in interrogatory statement of the witnesses. As per further averments of the FIR when the respondent No.2 under compulsion by leaving the matrimonial home was residing in her parental home at Badi, the applicant Nos. As per further averments of the FIR when the respondent No.2 under compulsion by leaving the matrimonial home was residing in her parental home at Badi, the applicant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 went there and by making demand of dowry committed the alleged cruelty with her there also. Accordingly, the alleged offence was not only committed at Madan Mahal but in continuation the same was committed by the applicants No.1, 5 and 6 at Badi also. 5. In the aforesaid premises, the present case for the purpose of deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is not governed by section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code but the same deserves to be governed by the provision of section 178 (b) (c) and (d) of such Code. Such sections are read as under:- "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. -- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed". "178. Place of inquiry or trial - (a) .......;...... .................................. ...................................... (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has 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. " 6. " 6. If the alleged incident happened in the territorial jurisdiction of one Court then certainly the jurisdiction of the Court would be governed by section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code but whenever initially the alleged offence is committed by the accused in the territorial jurisdiction of one Court and in continuation the same is committed by all of the accused or any of them in the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court then in such premises, in view of aforesaid provision of section 178 (b), (c) and (d) of Criminal Procedure Code all the accused/applicants could be prosecuted and tried in such other Court also in "those jurisdiction in continuation the alleged offence was committed by some of the applicants/ accused out of the applicants who committed such offence initially in the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the apex Court cited by counsel of the respondent No.2 in the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra) in which it is held as under: "7. Despite service being effected on the private respondent, no one has appeared for any of the accused-respondents. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of mal treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps should be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed." 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any circumstance in the case to quash the FIR or any other proceedings based on it by invoking the inherent powers of this Court enumerated under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code resultantly, this petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.