Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 786 (PAT)

Baijnath Madasia v. State of Bihar

2012-05-15

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners have come against the order dated 19th February, 2007 passed in Cr. Revision No. 56 of 2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, Siwan by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the order dated 11.2.2005 passed in Tr. No. 1700 of 2005 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1071 of 2004 by the learned S.D.J.M., Siwan, whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he had summoned the petitioners. 3. The petitioners contend that since the court taking cognizance had no territorial jurisdiction to pass order as the entire incident had taken place at Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, the order of cognizance and summoning is bad in law. Since the revisional court did not interfere with a wrong order passed by the Magistrate, the same would also be bad in law. 4. While hearing the matter, I find that apart from complaint petition neither the statement of complainant on oath, nor the deposition of witnesses examined in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been brought on record. It is to be noted that when the petitioners have raised a legal issue, it was incumbent upon them to bring on record relevant documents considering which the court below found a prima facie case and summoned them. 5. Chapter-XIII of 1973 deals with the jurisdiction of criminal court in inquiry and trials. Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant which are as follows: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial – (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed. or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one. or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 179. or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." 6. From the above provisions, it is clear that normal rule is that the offence has ordinarily to be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, if it is uncertain in which of several local areas 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, as per Section 178 Cr.P.C. the court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into or try the offence. 7. Section 179 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that if an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 8. The complainant in the present case was married at Siwan. After marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home at Deoria where she was subjected to cruelty in various ways. Her brother and parents went to Deoria in order to pacify the matter. They were abused and threatened that if the demand is not fulfilled, their daughter would not be allowed to live peacefully in her matrimonial home. Ultimately, the parents were compelled to bring her back to Siwan where the present case was instituted. 9. Cruelty or harassment in all cases need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Explanation-A to Section 498A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. 10. Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Explanation-A to Section 498A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. 10. Recently in Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and Another since reported in (2011 )11 SCC 301 [ : 2011 (2) PLJR (SC)191], the Apex Court considered a similar case where complaint was tiled by the victim wife at Gaya, alleging ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and his relatives had matrimonial home in Ranchi and that she was forcibly taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences in case their dowry demand was not fulfilled. 11. The C.J.M., Gaya took cognizance of the offence punishable inter alia under Sections 498A IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The order was challenged before this Court. A Bench of this Court found that the proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and, thus, quashed the entire proceedings of that case. The complainant being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that 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 and, thus, Clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted and the order of this Court holding that the proceedings at Gaya was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction was set aside and the concerned Court at Gaya was permitted to proceed with the criminal proceeding in trial and decide the same in accordance with law. 12. In the present case, as noted above, though, the petitioners have not thought on record the statement of complainant and deposition of witnesses examined in course of inquiry, I find that the allegations are more or less identical to that of the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (supra). 13. Since, in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has held offence under Section 498A IPC to be a continuing offence, the order passed by the court below cannot be interfered with. 14. In the result the present application is dismissed. 13. Since, in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has held offence under Section 498A IPC to be a continuing offence, the order passed by the court below cannot be interfered with. 14. In the result the present application is dismissed. The S.D.J.M., Siwan, would now proceed with the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1071 of 2004.