Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 808 (JHR)

Kamla Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-08-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners in the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against the' petitioners including the order of cognizance dated 11.10.2007 passed by the court below in G.R. Case No. 3256 of 2006 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 185 of 2006 whereby cognizance for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the present petitioners and they were directed to appear and face trial in respect of the aforesaid offences. 3. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding which was initiated pursuant to the F.I.R. on the following grounds:- (i) In view of the admitted facts that the entire transaction relating to the alleged offence did not occur at any point of time within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the Magistrate could neither have taken cognizance of the offence nor could exercise any jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners in view of the prohibition under the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. (ii) The F.I.R. is lodged with mala fide and ulterior motives as the admitted facts would demonstrate that it was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 by way of her retaliation against the matrimonial title suit filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (iii) The case was instituted after a delay of more than 10 months after the Opposite Party No. 2 had left her matrimonial house and the company of the petitioners. 4. Elaborating the grounds, counsel for the petitioners would argue that from the entire averments as contained in the F.I.R., it would transpire that the alleged ill-treatment and cruelty which the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 Claims to have suffered at the hands of the petitioners, was entirely at her matrimonial house at Gaya and no part of any alleged transaction had occurred at any point of time within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Learned counsel argues further that the solitary allegation of an alleged instance at Ranchi on 6.8.2006, has been intentionally added only with the mala fide intention to create a ground for jurisdiction of the learned court below at Ranchi and this would be evident from the fact that even such allegations are vague and omnibus in nature. Furthermore, even such allegations do not constitute the term "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code since there was admittedly no demand of dowry made by any of the petitioners on 6.8.2006. Learned counsel submits further that even though the allegation relating to 6.8.2006 alleged to have occurred at Ranchi, accuses the petitioner's brother-in-law Rathu Sahu of having indulged in abuses and threats, but the said Rathu Sahu has not even been named in the charge-sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, would submit that the offence of cruelty committed by the petitioners against the Opposite Party No. 2 is a continuing offence and even though the lady had left her matrimonial house• under the compulsive circumstance and living at her parents house for the past about ten months prior to the date of lodging the F.I.R., but the allegations do confirm that even 'on 6.8.2006, the husband and brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2 had visited• the lady at Ranchi and had abused her and had issued threats of injury LO her and this amounts to causing mental cruelty to her by the husband and his brother-in-law. 6. For better appreciation of the rival arguments, the facts of the case may be stated briefly:- The Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged the F.I.R. at the police station on the basis of which a case for the offence under Section 491 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. On the basis of the Police Report and the recommendations of the Investigating Officer as contained therein, the court below took cognizance of the said offences against both the petitioners. The case of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 is that her marriage with the petitioner No. 2 Ganga Prasad Gupta was solemnized on 28.6.2005 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs at her fathers house at Maithan in the district of Dhanbad. The case of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 is that her marriage with the petitioner No. 2 Ganga Prasad Gupta was solemnized on 28.6.2005 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs at her fathers house at Maithan in the district of Dhanbad. At the time of marriage, as per the demands made by the husband and in-laws of the lady, her father gave cash amount of Rs. 4,51,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 99,965/- to the accused persons through separate Bank Drafts drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi Branch on 6.6.2005. In addition, the father of the Opposite Party No. 2 also gave articles including Refrigerator and other household items as well as a motorcycle, jewellery and utensils worth Rs. 2 lakhs to the girl at the time of marriage. She was taken after the marriage to her matrimonial house at Gaya but soon thereafter, her in-laws had cunningly taken away her entire gold ornaments on the pretext of safe custody. In course of time, a fresh dmand for money for purchasing a car began to be made and she used to be pressurized in various ways to fetch the money from her father. The accused persons including the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and other members of the matrimonial family began subjecting the lady to ill-treatment and cruelty in their attempt to compel her to meet their demands. Ultimately, she was expelled from the matrimonial house by the accused persons on 10.11.2005 whereafter she came back to her father's house and since then she has been living at her father's house It is alleged that on 6.1.2006 and again on 6.8.2006 the husband and brother-in-law namely Rathu Sahu met the opposite Party No. 2 at her father's house and threatened her with dire consequences and indulged in abuses and scuffle with her and they had left after giving out threats of serious consequences if she reported the matter to the police. 7. From the entire facts, as stated in the F.I.R., it does appear that the transaction relating to the alleged acts of cruelty was confined to the matrimonial house of the complainant at Gaya. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegation of the incidents dated 6.1.2006 and 6.8.2006, are entirely vague and omnibus and even otherwise, the alleged acts do not relate to any alleged demand for dowry. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegation of the incidents dated 6.1.2006 and 6.8.2006, are entirely vague and omnibus and even otherwise, the alleged acts do not relate to any alleged demand for dowry. 8. The allegations in the F.I.R. need also be viewed in the background of the admitted fact that the complainant lady had left her matrimonial house some time in the month of November, 2005 and did not thereafter return to her husband. Admittedly, the husband had instituted a civil matrimonial proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife and notices issued in the proceeding were served upon the wife. Apparently, after leaving her matrimonial house, the lady did not reserve any grievance against her husband and in-laws which could have persuaded her to lodge a prompt complaint against them. It is only. after receiving the notices in the matrimonial proceeding that the lady chose to take recourse to criminal action by filing the F.I.R. Furthermore, after having filed the civil matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights and in absence of any previous proceeding initiated by the lady against her husband, there could be no obvious reason for the husband to visit his wife at her father's house after about ten months of the estrangement between the spouses, only to abuse and threaten her. These facts rather make it obvious that the alleged incidents of 6.1.2006 and 6.8.2006 at Ranchi and the allegation relating thereto against the husband is fictitious. It is not understandable as to why the husband and his brother-in-law would travel all the way from Gaya to Ranchi only to indulge in verbal and physical abuses with the complainant. The obvious purpose for introducing such allegations is to provide jurisdiction to the court at Ranchi. 9. A similar issue involving identical facts came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Sharma & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others, ACR 3 (2007) 2772. The facts of the case contained allegation that the accused persons living at Ajmer had visited the informant at Agra and had indulged in physical assault on the complainant. Upon considering the entire sequence and facts and circumstances, the Court had observed that the alleged incident at Agra has been introduced only with a view to sue the accused persons at the complainant's place in Agra. 10. Upon considering the entire sequence and facts and circumstances, the Court had observed that the alleged incident at Agra has been introduced only with a view to sue the accused persons at the complainant's place in Agra. 10. In yet another judgment, passed by this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Bedi and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another in Cr. M.P. No. 66 of 2006, upon considering the admitted facts of the case, including the fact that the entire transaction of alleged cruelty had occurred at the matrimonial house of the complainant situated within the jurisdiction of a totally different court, in a different district, and relying upon the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan & Others vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2006(8) Supreme 372 and to the another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, 2004(8) SCC 100 , this Court had observed that the prohibition contained in the provisions under Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., would apply and the order of cognizance passed by the court which did not have the territorial jurisdiction, was bad in law. 11. In the light of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court at Ranchi has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the Opposite Party No. 2 or to try the accused persons for the alleged offences for which cognizance was taken. Such order of cognizance and the continuance of the criminal proceeding by the court which lacks jurisdiction to try the offenders, cannot be allowed to continue. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is allowed, The impugned order of cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding following the order of cognizance, pending in the Court of Sri P.K. Chourasia, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ranchi vide G.R. Case No. 3256 of 2006 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 185 of 2006, against the present petitioners/accused, is hereby quashed.