Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 652 (JHR)

Sumanta Seth v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-27

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER I.A. No. 1487 of 2011 This I.A. has been filed by the victim lady for being added as Intervener in the present writ petition. It has been stated that the complainant was the father of the victim lady, who died on 17.1.2009. Accordingly, the victim lady Supriya Seth, filed the said I.A. for being added as party in this case. In the facts of this case, the victim Supriya Seth is allowed to intervene in the matter. Learned counsel is directed to add the victim Supriya Seth as respondent No.2 in this case. I.A. 1487 of 2011 is accordingly, allowed. W.P.(Cr.) No. 35 of 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Sadar Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 577 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 498A of the IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. Subsequently, by the interlocutory application, the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, in G.R. Case No. 577 of 2008, has been brought on record, whereby the cognizance for the offence is taker against the petitioners under Sections 498A of the IPC and the case was transferred to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa, for trial of the case. 3. The complaint petition was filed by one Sakti Pada Mandal, who was the father of the victim lady, stating that his daughter Supriya Seth was married to the petitioner Samanta Seth. Marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, after heavy dowry was given to the groom. It appears from the complaint petition that negotiation of the marriage, and handing over the jewelry and other items, was done at Chaibasa and marriage had taken place between the parties at Kolkata on 19.7.2007, according to Hindu rites and customs. Marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, after heavy dowry was given to the groom. It appears from the complaint petition that negotiation of the marriage, and handing over the jewelry and other items, was done at Chaibasa and marriage had taken place between the parties at Kolkata on 19.7.2007, according to Hindu rites and customs. It appears from the complaint petition that after the marriage, the daughter of the complainant was taken to Durgapur in the matrimonial home, but as the marriage gifts and dowry did not satisfy the accused petitioners, they started taunting the complainant's daughter soon after her arrival in the matrimonial home and subsequently alleging that the complainant's daughter was suffering from some diseases, she was ultimately driven out from the matrimonial home on 22.3.2008, whereafter, she is living at Chaibasa with her parents. It also appears from the complaint petition that a Matrimonial Suit No. 244 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner Samanta Seth in the District Court, Durgapur, for dissolution of the marriage between the parties, and thereafter the complaint petition was filed by the complainant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa, making out the allegations under Section 498A and other sections of the IPC, which was registered as C/1 Case No. 78 of 2008. It appears that under the provision of 156(3) Cr.P.C. the case was forwarded for institution of the police case, on the basis of which Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 577 of 2008 was instituted for the offence under Sections 420/406/498A of the IPC and the investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police had submitted chargesheet against the husband and the in-laws of the victim lady, pursuant whereto, by order dated 22.2.2010 passed by CJM, Chaibasa, the cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution of the case against the petitioners, as also the impugned order taking cognizance passed by the Court below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the allegations, if any, against the petitioners are at Durgapur and not at Chaibasa and accordingly, the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution of the case against the petitioners, as also the impugned order taking cognizance passed by the Court below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the allegations, if any, against the petitioners are at Durgapur and not at Chaibasa and accordingly, the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. It has also been submitted that there is inordinate delay of about nine months in lodging the complaint in the Court below, and that too, was lodged only after the complainant learnt that a divorce suit was filed against the wife by the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in (2004)8 SCC 100 , wherein in a similar matter arising for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, where it was found that the complainant had disclosed that the respondent had left the place i.e. Nagercoil where she was residing with her husband and all the allegations, according to the complainant, had taken place at Nagercoil and thereafter she came to Chennai, it was held that the Court of Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the institution of the criminal case and the impugned order taking cognizance in the said case, by the Court below at Chaibasa, is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and are fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is a continuing offence and the offence is continuing even at Chaibasa where the lady is leading a deserted life after being driven out from the matrimonial home. Learned counsel in this connection, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2481, in which the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra), and has laid down the law as follows:- "77. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2481, in which the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra), and has laid down the law as follows:- "77. 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 consequences 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, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of 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 illtreatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted." 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel submitted that the Court at Chaibasa has got territorial jurisdiction to try the case, as the offence is continuing offence, and there is no question of delay in filing the complaint case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality either in instituting the case at Chaibasa, or in the impugned order of cognizance and the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality either in instituting the case at Chaibasa, or in the impugned order of cognizance and the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the complaint petition itself specifically mentioned that the marriage was settled at Chaibasa between the parties and the part of the dowry was also given at Chaibasa. It also appears that after being driven out from the matrimonial home, the victim lady is leading the deserted life at Chaibasa at her parents place. It goes without saying that even during separation, the offence under Section 498A is still continuing as the offence under Section 498A of the IPC includes the mental cruelty as well, and this view is also supported by the Apex Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap's case (supra), holding that the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is a continuous offence. As such, it is apparent that the Court at Chaibasa shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the case. The offence under Section 498A of the IPC being a continuous offence, the filing of the complaint case, after a period of about nine months from being driven out from her matrimonial home, makes no difference at all. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.