Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1615 (JHR)

Amitej Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By the Court.— This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated, 15.6.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. 3. It is the case of the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 at Dhanbad but before solemnization of marriage, the accused persons had pressurized the complainant's parent to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lac and other articles. The complainant's father on succumbing to their pressure, gave drafts of Rs. 5,25,000/- drawn on the bank at Dhanbad to the petitioner No.2, father of petitioner No.1. That apart, jewellaries, car and also cash were given to the petitioner No. 1 at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the complainant came to Ranchi where the accused persons were having ancestral house. There the accused persons expressed their dissatisfaction over the cash and articles given to the petitioner No.1 at the time of marriage. Therefore, all the accused persons started torturing the complainant mentally and physically so that a Hat at Kolkata be purchased in the name of the accused and further a cash of Rs. 10 lac be paid. Thereafter the complainant was taken by her husband (petitioner No.1) to Kolkata where the husband almost left taking any interest on the complainant. During her stay at Kolkata, whenever other accused persons came, to Kolkata, they subjected the complainant to torture and when the complainant objected to it, she at times was assaulted by her husband (petitioner No.1). 4. Further case is that at Kolkata, the husband (petitioner No.1) and his father (petitioner No.2) made a demand of flat at Kolkata. On being pressurized, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- was deposited by the parents of the complainant in the bank at Dhanbad for its transfer to the account of the complainant. Subsequently, further amounts were also transferred to the account of complainant. In course of time, when pressure was mounted by the accused persons, one flat was purchased but it was purchased in the name of the complainant. 90,000/- was deposited by the parents of the complainant in the bank at Dhanbad for its transfer to the account of the complainant. Subsequently, further amounts were also transferred to the account of complainant. In course of time, when pressure was mounted by the accused persons, one flat was purchased but it was purchased in the name of the complainant. After the flat was purchased at Kolkata, the complainant and her husband started living-in it. Therefore, the accused persons started putting pressure to transfer the flat in- the name of the petitioner No.1. Since it was not done, the complainant was subjected to torture as a result of which, she came back to Dhanbad where her husband (petitioner No. 1), father-in-law (petitioner No.2) and petitioner No. 5 (brother of petitioner No.1) came where panchayati took place in which assurance was given by the petitioner No. 1 that she would not be subjected to torture henceforth and only thereafter the complainant was allowed to go along with them but the accused persons again started complainant to torture, ultimately she was driven out of the house. 5. On such allegations. a complaint case bearing C-1 case No. 1980 of 2010 was lodged in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for the offences under Sections 498-A. 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, upon which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the- Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners. That order is under challenge. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per the allegation made in the complaint, no cause of action for commission of offence under which cognizance has been taken has ever accrued at Dhanbad where on filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offences was taken and thereby the order taking cognizance is bad, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (11) SCC 103 , and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, 2004 (8) SCC 100 . 7. 7. Learned counsel in this respect submitted that as per the allegation certain• amounts have been allegedly deposited in the account at Dhanbad presumably for its transfer to the account of the complainant but the deposit of the amount at Dhanbad would not create any jurisdiction upon the Court at Dhanbad as accrual of the case of action for an offence under Section 498-A is different from accrual of the cause of action in a case of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 8. It was further submitted that as per the case of the complainant, panchayati took place at Dhanbad but that factum of holding panchayati at Dhanbad will also not create any jurisdiction to the Court at Dhanbad as in the panchayati, the accused persons have never been alleged to have committed anything so as to attract any offence under which cognizance has been taken. 9. Thus, it was submitted that since no cause of action has ever accrued at Dhanbad, the Court at Dhanbad by taking cognizance has certainly committed illegality and thereby order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. 10. Further it was submitted that from perusal of the complaint it would appear that specific allegation constituting offence under which cognizance has been taken is upon the petitioners No.1 and 2 only but the Court has taken cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons even against the accused persons against whom there is general and omnibus allegation and as such, the order taking cognizance against them is fit to be quashed, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another. 11. As against this, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant's parent on being pressurized deposited money in the account at Dhanbad which seems to have been transferred to Kolkata and under this situation, it can be said that the demand was fulfilled at Dhanbad. 12. Furthermore. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant's parent on being pressurized deposited money in the account at Dhanbad which seems to have been transferred to Kolkata and under this situation, it can be said that the demand was fulfilled at Dhanbad. 12. Furthermore. it is not that cognizance of the offence has been taken only for an offence under Section 498-A but it has also been taken under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as the allegation is there in the complaint to the effect that goods and articles and also jewellaries were given to the complainant at Dhanbad at the time of marriage which has been retained by the petitioner No. 1 who on demand, even refused to give it to the complainant, and thereby the Court at Dhanbad where the articles had been given to the accused persons will have jurisdiction in terms of the provision as contained in sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Kanhaiya Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009 (1) East Cr C 30 (Raj). 14. Thus, it was submitted that the Court at Dhanbad did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance of the offence as alleged. 15. It was further submitted that in the recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of prosecution under Section 498-A, the person• against whom there has been no specific allegation is not liable to be prosecuted. But here in the instant case, allegations are therein the complaint that all the accused persons put forth demand of dowry and even they subjected the complainant to torture and in such situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 16. But here in the instant case, allegations are therein the complaint that all the accused persons put forth demand of dowry and even they subjected the complainant to torture and in such situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 16. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the basis of the ratio laid down in case of Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also in case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the Court at the place, where no cause of action constituting offence has ever arisen. will have no jurisdiction to entertain it rather the Court where the offence was committed will have jurisdiction to try the offence. 17. While holding so, the court had no occasion to consider those cases in the light of the provision as contained in subsection (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows : "181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.-(1) Any offence of being a thug or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused persons is found. (2) ........................ (3) ......................... (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. 18. Thus, sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code does clearly provide that any offence of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused. 19. 19. Here in the instant case, specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint that the goods and articles and jewellaries of the complainant has been taken by the accused No.1 who is still having its custody and has refused to give it to the complainant. 20. Further it appears from paragraph 2 of the complaint petition that those articles had been given at the time of marriage at Dhanbad. 21. Thus, there has been no difficulty in holding that the Court at Dhanbad has jurisdiction to inquire into the matter or to try the case. 22. So far other submission regarding cognizance being bad against those persons against whom there is no specific allegation is concerned, that issue needs not to be gone into at this stage for want of entire materials, rather this issue would remain open for the petitioners to agitate it before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. 23. With the aforesaid observation, this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.