Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 259 (CHH)

STATE OF C. G. v. SANTOSH MEHRA

2011-07-29

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard on LA. No. 01/2011. 2. This is an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned Govt. Advocate and the grounds taken in the condonation application, I am satisfied that the State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for not filing the revision in time and the delay in "filing the revision deserves to be condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2011 is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. 5. Also heard on admission. 6. The applicant/State has filed this revision against the order dated 19th of November 2010 passed in Criminal Revision No.03/2010 by the Session Judge, Rajnandgaon. By the impugned order, the learned Session Judge allowed a Criminal Revision filed by the respondents/accused against the order of framing of charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC in Criminal Case No.1538/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. 7. Respondent No.7 was married to complainant- Manisha Mehra on 16.01.2007. The marriage was solemnized in Jabalpur. Manisha Mehra filed a written complaint on 24.01.2008 in Police Station Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon. In the written compliant, she made various allegations of treating her with cruelty by her husband and his relatives. The case of the prosecution is that though the allegations relating to treating the complainant with cruelty relates to Jabalpur, however, there is also allegation that once husband and in-laws' of the complainant had visited Dongargarh, and at that time, they had demanded Rs.20 lakhs and a car for establishing the business of the husband of the complainant from her father. On the above allegations, the trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the respondents. The said order was challenged in Revision by the respondents. The Session Judge referring to the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mumtaz Begum and others, held that demanding money for establishing the business never amounts to demand of dowry. The Session Judge further held that since the entire cause of action arose in territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur court, the Court at Rajnandgaon will not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Session Judge set-aside the charges framed against the respondents and directed that the charge sheet be returned to the prosecution for filing it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. The Session Judge set-aside the charges framed against the respondents and directed that the charge sheet be returned to the prosecution for filing it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate, argued that the learned Session Judge was not justified in allowing the revision on the above grounds and directing return of the charge-sheet for filing before a court of competent jurisdiction. 9. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 provides for ordinary place of enquiry and trial. It has been provided that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 provides for place of inquiry or trial in relation to the offences when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. It has been provided that in all such cases the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, a conjoint reading of these two sections would show that the rule laid down by section 177 is one of the general applications and governs all criminal trials held under the provisions of the C0de, subject to the exceptions elsewhere provided in the Code, whereas section 78 governs the exceptions as are provided therein. 10. Section 498-A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 10. Section 498-A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. An Explanation has been added to section 498-A according to which the "cruelty" for the purpose of this Section means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that demand of Rs.20 lakhs and a car was unlawful or it was made with the view of harassment. On the contrary, it comes that the above demand was allegedly made for the purpose of establishing the business of the husband. Since there is no evidence to show that the alleged amount and a car were demanded as dowry or they were demanded to harass the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant was subjected to 'cruelty' within the jurisdiction of Rajnandgaon Court. 12. In light of the above factual position, I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Session Court that the Magistrate sitting at Rajnandgaon was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the Session Judge was right in procedure in directing that the charge sheet be returned to the prosecution for filing it before the competent court. 13. There is no substance in the Revision Petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Revision Allowed.