Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 166 (MP)

Virendra Kumar v. State of M. P.

2015-02-05

B.D.RATHI

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.D. Rathi, J. 1. As the grievance raised in the aforesaid two petitions is identical and same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been preferred by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR No. 152/12 registered by P.S. Gormi, district Bhind for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C., read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The case emerges out of private complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Neema on 27/7/2012 was to the effect that she was married to Rajeev Soni on 29/5/2010, resident of 120-New Indira Colony Burhanpur as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs. After marriage in the beginning the atmosphere in her matrimonial home was peaceful for sometime but soon thereafter the petitioners started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues. She was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. ten lacs towards dowry. She was also aborted forcibly. At last, on 29/11/2013 the complainant was left at her parental home at Gormi by saying that she will not be allowed to enter their home unless and until she brings with her back an amount of Rs. ten lacs. In these circumstances, she lodged a written complaint at police station Gormi, district Bhind which was registered at Crime No. 152/12 against the petitioners for commission of offence under section 498-A of I.P.C., read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The principal ground to challenge the FIR and consequential proceedings is that the incident although was alleged to have taken place at Burhanpur, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with her parents lodged the report at police station Gormi district Bhind which cannot be construed as legal and proper as the police authority of Gormi district has no territorial jurisdiction of conducting investigation in the matter. Therefore, the investigating authority of Gormi district has traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an abuse of the process of law. 5. On the merits of the case, it is contended that previously one written complaint was also filed on 19/7/2012. The allegations in that complaint were made to the effect that for non-fulfillment of the amount of Rs. 5. On the merits of the case, it is contended that previously one written complaint was also filed on 19/7/2012. The allegations in that complaint were made to the effect that for non-fulfillment of the amount of Rs. Two lacs towards dowry, the complainant was subjected to mental and cruel some behaviour but in the latter complaint dated 27/7/12, it was alleged by her that an amount of Rs. Ten lacs was demanded by the in-laws family and for non-fulfillment of that demand she was made subject to maltreatment. It is submitted by the counsel that even if the facts of the aforesaid complaints are taken to be true, even then it surely appears to be a case where prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the FIR and entire proceedings basing thereupon may be quashed. 6. Per contra, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for respondent No. is that the allegations made in the complaint constitutes a continuing offence, which might be stated to have taken place at both the places i.e., Burhanpur and Gormi and in such a situation, the investigation conducted by the police authority of Gormi district Bhind is well within its jurisdiction. In support of the contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon. Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sujata Mukheerjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee : (1997) 5 SCC 30 ] and State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi 2005 SCC (Cri) 415. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the petition sans substance and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire case has been examined. 8. As regards the plea of territorial jurisdiction and to consider the question whether the allegations made in the complaint petition would constitute a continuing offence, it would be apposite to extract below the provisions contained in Section 178 of Cr.P.C. which read as under:- “178. 8. As regards the plea of territorial jurisdiction and to consider the question whether the allegations made in the complaint petition would constitute a continuing offence, it would be apposite to extract below the provisions contained in Section 178 of Cr.P.C. which read as under:- “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 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.” Clause (c) of the said provision, thus, has been applied in the instant case. 9. In a case of this nature, an offence cannot be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant was left to her parental house to look after her father who was confined to bed because of meeting with an accident. 10. In State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi & another [: (1972) 2 SCC 890 ], it was stated: “A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues, and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all.” 11. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all.” 11. In Sujata Mukherjee (supra), the Hon. Apex Court held the offence to be a continuing one as specific allegations had been made against the husband that he had also gone to Raipur where the complaint was filed and had assaulted the appellant therein. Hence, the criminal case filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur was only maintainable against the respondent husband against whom some overt act at Raipur was alleged. 12. But in the present case the factual position is different as in the case at hand, the complainant was left to the house of her father to look after him. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at the place of Gormi. That being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied. In such premises, the ratio of decision cited by the leaned counsel for respondent No. 2 in case of Sujata Mukherjee (supra) is distinguishable on facts of the present case. Furthermore, though specifically it was not mentioned in the FIR dated 27/7/2012 but in view of the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, on perusal of the aforesaid FIR, it is clear that fact of illness of father of the complainant and his confinement to bed because of an accident has been brought on record. Therefore with certainty it could be concluded that the complainant was left to her parental home for looking after her father. It was not the case of the complainant that when she was left to her parental home then nobody from her in-laws' side came there to bring her back to the matrimonial house. Also it was not stated by the complainant that in that eventuality any case for restitution of conjugal right was preferred by her against Rajeev Soni (her husband). 13. Also it was not stated by the complainant that in that eventuality any case for restitution of conjugal right was preferred by her against Rajeev Soni (her husband). 13. On perusal of the previous complaint dated 19/7/2012, subsequent complaint dated 27/7/2012 and other materials on record as also analysis of the arguments advanced by the contesting parties, it is apparent that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Gormi and the entire incident even as per the aforesaid two complaints had taken place at Burhanpur. Even according to the FIR no incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of Gormi police station and therefore it lacks territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. This ground is just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings of Crime No. 152/12 registered by police station Gormi, district Bhind against the petitioners for commission of offence under sections 498-A of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the court-below for necessary compliance. No order as to costs.