Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 121 (JK)

Rakesh Dhar v. State Of J&K

2014-03-20

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2014
1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2011 under sections 498-A and 406 RPC registered against them at Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar, on a report lodged by respondent No. 3 (herein after the informant). 2. Heard. I have perused the record. 3. Informant, Vandana Koul, is wife of petitioner No. 1, Rakesh Dhar. On 07.12.2011, informant lodged a written information at Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar, alleging that after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 24.05.2010, they came to Srinagar on 27.05.2010 for honeymoon and stayed in Hemal Hotel, at the Dal Lake. Petitioner No. 1 started physically torturing her on one pretext or the other. He kept on telling her why her parents have not given the money asked for by him for purchasing flat in Greater Noida. He used to beat her for no reason and used abusive language. After about three days, they flew back to Delhi. She alleged further that at Delhi, parents of the petitioner No. 1, who were already there, left no stone unturned to torture her physically and mentally. "This also includes her two sisters-in-law". She did not disclose the factum of torture being meted to her to her parents and tried her best to keep her in-laws happy. She also alleged that all the gold ornaments, which were received by her at the time of her marriage from both sides, were taken from her by her in-laws at Jammu before they had left for honeymoon and are lying with them. Having decided not to take the torture meted to her anymore, she on 09.03.2011 called her parents, who brought her back from Delhi on 15.03.2011 and since then she is living with her parents at Srinagar. Lastly, she stated that all attempts of her parents to get the matter amicably settled have gone in vain and, therefore, requested the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station to take necessary steps in the matter against her husband, his parents, Pushkar Nath Dhar and Jaya Dhar and two sisters, Meenakshi Saproo and Reema Nagri. 4. On the information lodged by the informant, FIR No. 47, under sections 498-A and 406 RPC came to be registered on 07.12.2011 and investigation taken up. 5. 4. On the information lodged by the informant, FIR No. 47, under sections 498-A and 406 RPC came to be registered on 07.12.2011 and investigation taken up. 5. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the informant and some of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Petitioners (accused), however, filed this petition before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR and the proceedings taken by the police. 6. Quashment is sought mainly on two grounds: firstly, that registration of case and investigation by Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar is without jurisdiction as neither any offence nor any part of the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station or any Police Station at Srinagar and secondly, that the information lodged by the informant did not disclose all the ingredients of offence either under section 498-A RPC or 406 RPC. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would say that registration of FIR by the police at Police Station, Rambagh and investigation of the case is in violation of section 156 Cr.P.C. as the offence alleged by the informant was not committed within the jurisdiction of said Police Station as provided under section 156 Cr.P.C. Mr. Jan further submitted that as per own saying of the petitioner No. 1, the occurrence in its entirety has taken place at Delhi and no offence can be said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of any Police Station at Srinagar. Mr. Jan, thus, submitted that registration of the FIR and investigation by the police having no jurisdiction over the alleged offence is illegal and liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. In support, Mr. Jan relied upon Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004)8 SCC 100 and Bhura Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 2008 SCC 2666. Mr. Jan submitted further that the information lodged by respondent No. 3 on its plain reading would show that registration of case against parents and sisters of petitioner No. 1 is totally misconceived and illegal as by the own showing of the informant they were not in picture in whatever allegedly happened at Srinagar. Mr. Jan submitted further that the information lodged by respondent No. 3 on its plain reading would show that registration of case against parents and sisters of petitioner No. 1 is totally misconceived and illegal as by the own showing of the informant they were not in picture in whatever allegedly happened at Srinagar. He submitted further that the information lodged by the informant in no case makes out a case of cruelty as provided under section 498-A RPC or criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 RPC. 7. Per contra, Mr. R. A. Khan, learned AAG supported by Mr. A. Chesti, learned counsel for the informant, while not disputing legal position as regards jurisdiction of a Police Station to investigate a case, submitted that offence under section 498-A does not comprise of a single act of commission or omission and is rather a continuing offence comprising a combination of series of acts by an accused at different times and places. Such offences attract section 182 Cr. P. C. and can be investigated at any one of the places, where a part of offence is committed. On the facts of case, Mr. Khan submitted that torturous conduct of the petitioners had commenced and taken place for some days at Srinagar and thereafter at their residence at Delhi so a Police Station at Srinagar has the jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. 8. Jurisdiction of a Police Station to investigate a case is concomitant with jurisdiction of a Court to inquire into or try the said case. This aspect is governed under section 156 and sections 177 to 188 Cr. P.C. 9. Section 156, 177 and 182 are relevant for determination of the question here arising. These three sections read: 156. Investigation into cognizable cases.-(1). Any officer-in-incharge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within, the local limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial. (2)............. (3)................." 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. -- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed." 182. (2)............. (3)................." 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. -- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed." 182. Place of inquiry or trial where scene of offence is uncertain or not in one district only; or where offence is continuing, or consists of several acts.-when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, 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; It may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 10. Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides for the general and a simple rule that an offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction it has been committed. To say otherwise, Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence has the jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence. It would, therefore, mean that ordinarily only a Court at one place has the jurisdiction to inquire into or try an offence. This rule, however, is subject to several exceptions contained in sections 178 to 188, which make possible the trial of or inquiry into an offence by courts at more than one places or by a court other than that in whose jurisdiction offence has been committed. 11. Section 188 Cr.PC provides for a set of such exceptions to the general rule and makes possible inquiry into or trial of an offence at more than one places. These exceptions are: i) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or ii) When an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or iii) Where an offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one or iv) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. In all such cases inquiry or trial can be conducted by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 12. Petitioners in this case are alleged to have committed an offence defined and punishable under section 498-A RPC. In all such cases inquiry or trial can be conducted by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 12. Petitioners in this case are alleged to have committed an offence defined and punishable under section 498-A RPC. Section 498-A reads: 498-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a terms which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means:- (a) any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman; or (b) harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 13. Section 498-A Cr. P.C. on its bare reading would show that it does not necessarily contemplate a single act of a person to constitute an offence. It quite often relates to a continuing conduct of a person, which may be combination of variety and number of acts of maltreatment and humiliation spreading over a period of time at more than one places till a situation arises when the victim takes recourse to legal action by lodging report in police or compliant in the court against the offender. An offence under section 498-A RPC can attract paras 3 and 4 of section 182 Cr.P.C. and more than one court may have jurisdiction to try the offence. In the case on hand the alleged act of cruelty is in the form of harassment and maltreatment stemming out of the petitioner No. 1's demand for money from the parents of the informant for purchasing a flat at Greater Noida. This harassment and maltreatment started and took place for few days at Srinagar and thereafter continued at Delhi. The jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence allegedly committed, therefore, vests both in a court having territorial jurisdiction at Srinagar as also to a court having territorial jurisdiction at Delhi. 14. This harassment and maltreatment started and took place for few days at Srinagar and thereafter continued at Delhi. The jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence allegedly committed, therefore, vests both in a court having territorial jurisdiction at Srinagar as also to a court having territorial jurisdiction at Delhi. 14. In Shujata Mukerjee v. Parshant Kumar Mukerjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 which was a case involving a fact situation somewhat similar to the case on hand, Supreme Court has observed in para 7 of the reporting: ....we have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps should be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly, allowed". 15. It will also be useful contextually to refer to the observation made by Their Lordship in para 4 of the reporting in Bhura Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SCC 2666: .............the facts stated in the complaint disclosed that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city Sri-Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court of Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence, the proceeding before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri-Ganganagar are quashed." 16. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence, the proceeding before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri-Ganganagar are quashed." 16. It is thus seen and emerges as a legal position that an offence under section 498-A RPC may be and generally is a continuing offence in the sense that it may comprise of more than one acts of cruelty of a person taking place over a period of time at more than one places. Power to inquire into or try into an offence under section 498-A therefore, cannot as a general rule be restricted to one court and can extend to more than one courts within whose territorial jurisdiction some of the acts of cruelty are committed. 17. In backdrop of the above legal position, it is seen in the case on hand, that the harassment of the informant by petitioner No. 1 had started and taken place for few days at Srinagar and thereafter for quite sometime took place at Delhi. Contention of the petitioners that the alleged occurrence had taken place purely beyond the territorial limits of any Police Station at Srinagar and therefore, a Police Station at Srinagar, that is, Police Station, Rambagh has no jurisdiction to investigate the case does not sustain. But an important aspect in this regard needs to be noticed and not ignored. By own saying of the informant, the harassment, whatsoever, at Srinagar was made by her husband, that is, petitioner No. 1 herein only. Presence of his parents and sisters and their involvement came into picture at Delhi. Neither the statement contained in the written information lodged by the informant nor her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., indicate, muchless show, that act of petitioner No. 1 at Srinagar was pursuant to a common intention or conspiracy with his parents or sisters or even at Delhi the harassment by the parents and sisters of the petitioner No. 1 was pursuant to a common intention or a conspiracy hatched by them. In such factual scenario, the alleged act of the parents and sisters of petitioner No. 1 need not be investigated into or tried alongwith petitioner No. 1, a Court at Srinagar will have no jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence under section 498-A against them and in no case a Police Station at Srinagar has the power to investigate the case against them. 18. Viewed thus, the first ground taken by petitioners succeeds in favour of petitioners 2 to 5 and fails in regard to petitioner No. 1. 19. The other ground taken by the petitioners is that the report lodged by the informant on its bare reading does not disclose commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A and 406 RPC and FIR deserves quashing to secure ends of justice. 20. Having considered this aspect, I am persuaded to agree with petitioners' contention to the extent of offence under section 406 RPC but not as regards offence under section 498-A RPC. Offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 RPC and defined under section 405 RPC contemplates entrustment of property or any domain over the property to a person and dishonest misappropriation of the property by that person. By the informant's own saying in the written information lodged by her, all her ornaments were taken from her by her in-laws at Jammu. It is also her say that three days after her marriage at Jammu, she and her husband had come for honeymoon to Srinagar, from Srinagar they had flied to Delhi and from Delhi she was brought to Srinagar by her parents in March, 2011. She is thus, clear in her say that her ornaments were taken by her in-laws before she left for honeymoon for Srinagar. This may be taken as a case of entrustment in good faith. However, there is nothing in the written information to suggest that she ever demanded her ornaments from her in-laws, that is, her parents in-law and they refused to handover the same to her. No case of criminal breach of trust is therefore made out in the written information lodged by the informant and registration of said offence is totally misconceived. 21. No case of criminal breach of trust is therefore made out in the written information lodged by the informant and registration of said offence is totally misconceived. 21. To summarize on the basis of all that said and discussed above, registration of offence under section 406 RPC is totally misconceived as commission of this offence is not made out in the information lodged by the informant and investigation against petitioners 2 to 5 is without jurisdiction. 22. In the result, this petition succeeds partly and FIR No. 47/2011 of Police Station, Rambagh and investigation pursuant thereto are quashed to the extent of petitioners 2 to 5 as also to the extent of commission of offence under section 406 RPC. To make it clear, investigation against petitioner No. 1 for offence under section 498-A RPC shall continue. 23. CD file be returned through the learned AAG.