Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 626 (JHR)

Kanchan Kapila v. State of Jharkhnand

2013-05-10

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. In this application, petitioners pray for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. C-2064 of 2011. Petitioners further pray for quashing of order dated 23.01.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case for the purpose of this case lie in a narrow compass. The Opposite Party no.2 has filed a complaint alleging therein that she married with the petitioner no.3, Amit Kapila on 25.08.2010 at Section-III Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of O. P.No.2 gave ornaments, clothes, furnitures, utensils and cash etc. as gift. It is further stated that after said marriage O.P.no.2 went to the house of her in-laws. It is further alleged that within a week of the marriage, petitioners started demanding Rs.5 lacs and a car from the parents of O.P. No. 2. Because of the aforesaid demand, father of O.P.no.2 died due to shock. It is further stated that after lapse of some time of the death of father of O.P.no.2, petitioners again started torturing O.P.no.2 for the aforesaid demand. It is stated that because of the said torture and demand O.P.no.2 came to Ranchi and started living with here mother. It is stated that on 28.05.2011 all the accused persons came to Ranchi and participated in a Panchayati. During said panchayati, it is mutually agreed between the parties that the demand raised by the petitioners will be fulfilled in instalments. It is further stated that on that day mother of O.P.no.2 gave Rs.1 lac in cash to the petitioners, thereafter, petitioners took the complainant/O.P.No.2 to their house situated at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is further stated that when O.P.no.2 reached at Noida, petitioners again started raising demand for payment of balance amount and when complainant's mother refused to pay the said amount due to her financial condition, petitioners started torturing and harassing O.P.no.2, hence present complaint filed. It appears that learned J.M. Ist class, Ranchi recorded statement of O.P.No.2 on Solemn Affirmation and also examined mother of O.P.no.2 as inquiry witness No.1. Thereafter, learned Magistrate by his order dated 23.01.2012 took cognizance against the petitioners under section 498A of the I.P.C. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in this application. 3. It appears that learned J.M. Ist class, Ranchi recorded statement of O.P.No.2 on Solemn Affirmation and also examined mother of O.P.no.2 as inquiry witness No.1. Thereafter, learned Magistrate by his order dated 23.01.2012 took cognizance against the petitioners under section 498A of the I.P.C. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in this application. 3. Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of complaint petition and statement of complainant on solemn affirmation, it is clear that allegation of harassment and/or cruelty against O.P.No.2 took place at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). Under the said circumstance, as per section 177 of the Cr. P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case. Thus, the impugned order as well as entire criminal proceeding initiated by the learned court below is an abuse of the process of court. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Sri Mahesh Tewari and learned Add. P.P. appearing for the opposite parties, submit that it is stated by the complainant at paragraph no.11 of the complaint petition, as well as in her statement on solemn affirmation that petitioners came to Ranchi and demanded dowry and they took part payment of dowry at Ranchi. Thus, the learned court below had jurisdiction to try this case according to the provisions of section 178 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly, it is submitted that present application filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. As noticed above, in the instant case, O.P.no.2 alleged that she has been harassed for demand of dowry in her in-laws house situated at Noida (U.P.). There is no allegation in the complaint petition, as well as in the statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and/or statement of mother of O.P.No.2 (inquiry witness no.1) that petitioners harassed and/or tortured O.P.No.2 at Ranchi. At paragraph no.11 of the complaint petition, it is stated that a panchayati took place at Ranchi on 28.05.2011. There is no allegation in it that at Ranchi petitioners harassed and/or tortured O.P.No.2. In the aforesaid paragraph of the complaint petition. It is only stated that a decision taken on mutual consent of both the parties. It is stated that in pursuance of aforesaid decision Rs.1 lac given to the petitioners. There is no allegation in it that at Ranchi petitioners harassed and/or tortured O.P.No.2. In the aforesaid paragraph of the complaint petition. It is only stated that a decision taken on mutual consent of both the parties. It is stated that in pursuance of aforesaid decision Rs.1 lac given to the petitioners. Thus, there is nothing in paragraph no.11 of the complaint petition and/or statement of complainant and inquiry witness that at Ranchi petitioners demanded dowry and/or harassed O.P.no.2. 7. Moreover, learned court below had not taken any cognizance against the petitioners under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, allegation of demand of dowry and allegation of giving Rs.1 lac to the petitioners at Ranchi by way of dowry has not been accepted by learned court below. Aforesaid order has not been challenged by O.P.No.2 in any higher court. 8. Section 177 of the Cr. P.C. reads as under : "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. 9. Thus, on plain reading of aforesaid provision, it is clear that every offence is required to be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the same has been committed. 10. As notice above, in the instant case, allegation of committing offence of harassment and torture has been committed at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). Thus, in my view, only because a panchayati took place at Ranchi, Ranchi Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, because participation in a panchayati is not an offence. Thus, aforesaid act on the part of petitioners will not come within the purview of continuing offence. In my view, for bringing a case within four corners of section 178 (C) of Cr. P.C., it is necessary for the complainant (O.P.No.2) to show that petitioners had harassed and tortured her at Ranchi. Since, there is no allegation in the complaint petition and statements of O.P.No.2 and inquiry witness no.1 that petitioners tortured O.P.No.2 at Ranchi, I am of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class Ranchi has no jurisdiction to try this case. 11. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, I conclude that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality and is an abuse of the process of court. 12. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the impugned order. 11. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, I conclude that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality and is an abuse of the process of court. 12. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the impugned order. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint case no. C-2064 of 2011 pending in the court of J.M. Ist class, Ranchi is hereby quashed. 13. However, I give liberty to O.P.No.2 to file complaint case, if she so desires, before a competent court of having territorial jurisdiction and/or at the place where the aforesaid occurrence took place.