Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 527 (JHR)

Sabita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-08

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2. This application is directed against the order dated 23.02.2007, passed in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, having come to the conclusion that no cause of action has ever accrued at Dumka, set aside the order under which cognizance had been taken by learned C.J.M., Dumka, against the petitioner in P.C.R. Case No. 296 of 2006, under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the learned C.J.M., Dumka, alleging therein that after getting married to Rudra Prasad Singh came to her in-law's place at Bhagalpur, where the accused persons started subjecting her to torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. In course of time, she along with her daughter was taken to her parents' house by her husband. 3. Further case is that when her husband fell ill, he was taken to Patna for the treatment where, the complainant came along with her father and started looking after her husband, but as her husband was suffering from Cancer, he died. Thereupon the members of the in-law's family started putting blame upon the complainant that she has been proved to be unlucky for her husband. The other day, the accused persons assaulted her in a room and then on 4.6.2006, she was driven out of house after snatching from her the ornaments which had been given in the marriage. 4. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged at Dumka. When cognizance was taken, the accused persons challenged it before the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, who having found that no cause of action has ever accrued at Dumka, the court at Dumka has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance was set aside. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel by referring to a decision rendered in a case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2011 (11) SCC 301 , submits that offence, under Section 498A being a continuing offence, can be lodged even at a place, where consequence got accrued. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel by referring to a decision rendered in a case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2011 (11) SCC 301 , submits that offence, under Section 498A being a continuing offence, can be lodged even at a place, where consequence got accrued. Since the complainant on being driven out of the house, came to Dumka at her parents house, she certainly suffered mental torture and as such, the court at Dumka had every territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the I.P.C and in that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge certainly committed error by quashing the order taking cognizance. 6. It be stated that in case of Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (11) SCC 103 and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police 2004 (8) SCC 100 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the court in whose local jurisdiction, offence gets committed does have jurisdiction to take cognizance and that the court will have no jurisdiction, where no part of offence was committed. Subsequently, Their Lordship, in a case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., in the facts of the case, were pleased to hold that episode at Gaya is only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment and illegal treatment meted out to the complainant. The detail which has been observed at Para-18 in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (supra) is as follows :- 18. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequence for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, as the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c ) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill-treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant at the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all had taken part and on other occasions one of the accused, namely, the husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c ) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted. 7. Thus, the facts which were there in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap is that though torture was inflicted at Ranchi, but at one point of time, the husband had taken her parental house at Gaya where threat of dire consequence for not fulfilling their demand of dowry was extended and, therefore, Their Lordship did find that consequence in terms of Sub-Clause (c ) of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code fell at Gaya and, therefore, it was held that the court at Gaya does have jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 8. Here in the instant case, as has been found earlier that no cause of action has ever accrued at Dumka and as such, the court at Dumka had absolutely no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, as alleged. 9. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order and accordingly, it is affirmed. 10. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the provision as contained in Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. by approaching the court to get the complaint returned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. If resort is made to that provision, necessary order be passed. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.