Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 936 (JHR)

Luthfor Rehman v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-07

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The complainant-opposite party No.2 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon her. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 21.7.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 321 of 2005, whereby on the basis of the statements made in the complaint petition and the materials brought before the Court below, at the enquiry stage, prima facie offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been found against the petitioners and the summons were directed to be issued against them. 3. Petitioners are the husband and other in-laws of the complainant and the complaint petition, which has been brought on record, shows that the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Luthfor Rehman had taken place in the District of Hawra in West Bengal. There are allegations against the petitioners of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, including, administering medicine and injection to her, due to which her condition become pitiable and it is alleged that they actually acted as slow poison. Ultimately she was brought to her father's place situated at Dhanbad, where the complaint petition was filed by the complainant making allegations against her husband and other in-laws. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which she has supported the case and four witnesses were examined in the enquiry stage, and on the basis of the materials brought before the Court below, at the enquiry stage, prima facie offence has been found against the petitioners as stated above, by the impugned order dated 21.7.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a short point in support of his contention for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, submitting that no part of the cause of action has taken place in the State of Jharkhand, rather all the allegations of cruelty and torture against the petitioners are of the State of West Bengal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a short point in support of his contention for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, submitting that no part of the cause of action has taken place in the State of Jharkhand, rather all the allegations of cruelty and torture against the petitioners are of the State of West Bengal. It is submitted that simply for the reason that the complainant has been residing at her parents' place in the State of Jharkhand and it is alleged that the accused persons are not taking her back in the matrimonial home, the offence cannot be said to be continued in the State of Jharkhand. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. V. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) East Cr C 231 (SC), wherein the law has been laid down by the Apex Court as follows:- “8. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Section 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent No. 2 “continued unabated” on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home …...” Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel has submitted that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners made in the complaint petition are accepted, it cannot be held that the mental cruelty continued unabated by the accused persons upon the complainant even in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceeding in the Court below is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, and the same cannot be allowed to be continued. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that since the complainant is residing in the State of Jharkhand due to desertion by her husband and in-laws, she is suffering the mental cruelty in the State of Jharkhand also, and as such, the Court below has jurisdiction to try the case. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that since the complainant is residing in the State of Jharkhand due to desertion by her husband and in-laws, she is suffering the mental cruelty in the State of Jharkhand also, and as such, the Court below has jurisdiction to try the case. 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that neither the marriage had taken place in the State of Jharkhand nor there is any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture in the State of Jharkhand. Whatever allegations are there, they were allegedly committed in the State of West Bengal and the complaint petition clearly shows that the accused persons visited the parents' place of the complainant, only at the time of reception party of marriage, when there is no allegation against the petitioners, except alleging that it appeared to the father of the complainant that they were not satisfied with the articles given in marriage. In that view of the matter, the case in hand is fully covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Amarendu Jyoti's case (supra), and as such, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued in the State of Jharkhand, as the Court below has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.7.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No.321 of 2005, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the said case, are hereby, quashed. This application is accordingly, allowed. 8. The complainant, however, shall be at liberty to bring her cause of action in the Court of competent jurisdiction and for that she may also take back the complaint petition from the Court below, for being filed in competent Court.