Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 639 (JHR)

Kamal Dev Giri v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-17

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. These writ applications filed for quashing the order dated 16.03.2005 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case no. 1164 of 2004, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is relevant to mention that W.P.(Cr.) No. 201 of 2005 filed by father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sister-in-laws of complainant, whereas W.P.(Cr.) No. 205 of 2005 filed by husband of complainant. 3. Case of complainant in brief is that she married with Jitendra Giri on 01.05.2001 at Ranchi. It is stated that on 02.05.2001 she went to Delhi, where her husband and other inmates of his family reside. It is stated that at Delhi she was tortured by the petitioners for demand of dowry. It is further stated that because of ill-behaviour of petitioners, complainant came to Ranchi on 20.11.2002. It is stated that while the complainant was comming to Ranchi , petitioners demanded remaining amount of car and threatened that if she will return without aforesaid amount, she will not be allowed to enter in the house. It is further stated that from Ranchi she informed the petitioners about her pregnancy, but after hearing the news they remain cool. However, on 15.06.2002 complainant gave birth to a male child. It is further alleged that husband of complainant came to Ranchi on 14.08.2002 to see the child but he had not attended Sataisaa Ceremony. It is further alleged that husband of complainant at that occasion abused and assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Accordingly, present complaint filed against the accused-petitioners at Ranchi. 4. It appears that learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after examining complainant on S.A., conducted inquiry under section 202 of the Cr. P.C. and recorded statement of witnesses adduced on her behalf. It then appears that learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 16.03.05. Aforesaid order challenged in present writ applications. 5. It is submitted by Sri Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint petition, because as per complaint petition all the cause of action arose at Delhi. Aforesaid order challenged in present writ applications. 5. It is submitted by Sri Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint petition, because as per complaint petition all the cause of action arose at Delhi. It is submitted that none of the occurrence took place at Ranchi, hence, Ranchi Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order is without jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, Sri Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for the State, submits that offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. is a continuing offence. Thus, if petitioners maltreated and/or humiliated the complainant at one place and later on one of the petitioner maltreated and/or humiliated her at different places, then as per provisions contained under section 178 (c) of the Cr. P.C., complaint can be filed at both places. It is submitted that in the complaint petition, it is alleged that all the accused persons (petitioners) assaulted and humiliated the complainant for demand of dowry at Delhi. It is further alleged that on 14.08.2002, one of the petitioners namely, Jitendra Giri came to Ranchi. He humiliated and assaulted complainant in front of her parent at Ranchi. Accordingly, Sri Verma submits that Ranchi Court has jurisdiction to try entire case. 7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 8. In the Complaint petition, it is alleged that petitioners of both cases had assaulted and humiliated complainant at Delhi. It is also specifically alleged at paragraph no. 20 of the complaint petition that on 14.08.2002 accused- Jitendra Giri came to Ranchi for attending Sataisaa Ceremony of his child and on that day he badly abused complainant in front of her parent and other family members. It is further alleged that when complainant protested, the accused- Jitendra Giri, caught hold hair of the complainant and threatened to kill her. Thus, it appears that part of the occurrence took place at Delhi and part of the occurrence took place at Ranchi. 9. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.).Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 (5) SCC-30 that offence under section 498A is a continuing offence. Thus, it appears that part of the occurrence took place at Delhi and part of the occurrence took place at Ranchi. 9. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.).Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 (5) SCC-30 that offence under section 498A is a continuing offence. Their Lordships further held that in case of continuing offence, if on some occasion all the accused persons had taken part in committing the offence and on other occasion only one accused took part in the commission of offence then Clause (c) of Section 178 of the Cr. P.C. will be attracted. 10. The provisions as contained under section 178 (c) of the Cr. P.C. runs as follows : "Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas then one" 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that in case of a continuing offence if said offence committed in more local areas than one then the inquiry or trial by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas is permissible. In the instant case, as noticed above, part of the occurrence took place at Delhi whereas part of occurrence took place at Ranchi. Under the said circumstance, Ranchi Court has jurisdiction to try entire case. Thus, I find no merit in the submission of Sri Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. The same is, accordingly, rejected. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order which require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, both the writ applications dismissed.