Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 517 (JHR)

Jayshree Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-28

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : 1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 496 of 2009, including the order dated 2.9.2009, passed by Shri A. Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A complaint petition was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, wherein it was stated that her marriage was solemnized with Satendra Kumar (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 70 of 2011) on 4.7.2013 at Aurangabad in the district of Khunti. It has been alleged that in her matrimonial house, the complainant was subjected to torture for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been stated therein that on account of pressure created by the accused persons, some amounts were paid to the accused persons by the father of the complainant as well by the brother of the complainant. Allegation has also been levelled that in spite of fulfilling the demands made by the accused persons, the torture continued upon the complainant and further amounts were demanded. The complainant having no other alternative left her matrimonial house with her child and thereafter the husband of the complainant had threatened her over telephone. Based on the aforesaid allegations, complaint case no. 496 of 1999 was instituted. Upon conducting an enquiry by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Daltonganj on 2.9.2009 for the offence punishable under sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that so far as the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1058 of 2010 is concerned, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. It has been submitted that the entire occurrence is said to have taken place in the district of Khunti whereas the case was deliberately instituted at Daltonganj and therefore since the Court at Daltonganj does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case, the entire criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has been submitted that the entire occurrence is said to have taken place in the district of Khunti whereas the case was deliberately instituted at Daltonganj and therefore since the Court at Daltonganj does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case, the entire criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has also been submitted that the allegations made by the complainant have been falsified by the report of the State Women Commission, in which while acting in the complaint made by the opposite party no. 2, the allegations were verified and subsequently it was found that no case of torture is made out against the accused persons on account of non fulfillment of dowry. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the report of the Sub-divisional Officer, Khunti, wherein the allegations were considered and it was stated therein that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to stay with the petitioner. It has been submitted that the report submitted by the State Women Commission as well as Sub-divisional Officer, Khunti goes to suggest that it is a malicious prosecution, which has been thrust upon the petitioners and therefore the criminal prosecution against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued. 4. Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, has submitted that the report of State Women Commission cannot be taken note of in view of the fact that the member who had passed the order is the wife of cousin brother of the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 70 of 2011. It has been submitted that only in order to cover up the guilt of the petitioners, State Women Commission had passed the order dated 19.06.2009. It has also been submitted that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since ouster of the complainant from her matrimonial house and mental torture, which she was subjected to and which has been a consequence of her ouster is a continuing offence and therefore the Court at Daltonganj did have the jurisdiction to try the case. It has further been submitted that in the complaint petition, specific allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons and therefore considering the entire aspects of the matter, the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners requires to be decided in the trial and these applications are therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. Since the main issue which has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with respect to territorial jurisdiction and which has been refuted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 taking shelter of Sections 178 and 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be necessary to deal with the said aspects at the initial stage as the other contentions raised by the petitioners can be considered only after it is finally decided by this Court as to whether the Court at Daltonganj had the territorial jurisdiction to try the case or not. 6. The complaint petition reveals that after the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 70 of 2011 there was a continuous and unabated demand of dowry and although specific demands were fulfilled but further demands were made and on such non fulfillment, the complainant was physically and mentally tortured, which compelled her to leave her matrimonial house at Daltonganj. It is, therefore, evident from a bare perusal of the complaint petition that none of the incidents, which are alleged to have taken place had happened at Daltonganj. The torture and demand of dowry during intermittent periods had continued at Khunti. So far as the husband of the complainant is concerned, there is an allegation of giving threat over telephone that physical harm shall be caused and the complainant shall be defamed in the Society. The allegation so far as the husband is concerned, threatening of dire consequences is the only allegation, which can be said to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Daltonganj Court. However, the said telephonic conversation does not relate to any demand of dowry and therefore it seems to have been inserted in the complaint petition only to create a jurisdiction in the Court at Daltonganj. 7. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has vehemently argued about continuing offence in terms of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has vehemently argued about continuing offence in terms of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. depicts the place of inquiry or trial and if an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, the same may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. deals with the offence, which can be tried at the place where the act is done or at a place where the consequence has ensued. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 had submitted that stay of the complainant in her parental house is a consequence of her being forced to leave her matrimonial house and such circumstances do create the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Daltonganj. The question of continuing offence or the consequence of an act, which has been done and which can be tried by the Court where such consequence ensues has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarendu Jyoti Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 362 , wherein it was held as follows:- “11. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon Respondent 2 “continued unabated” on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above and juxtaposing the same with the factual matrix as enumerated in the complaint petition do suggest that the offence as alleged by the complainant cannot be said to be a continuing offence and therefore the jurisdiction of the Court at Daltonganj is automatically ousted. No cause of action had arisen at Daltonganj save and except a telephonic call made by the husband of the complainant which also does not relate to the demand of dowry and the entire occurrence as alleged had taken place in the district at Khunti and therefore continuation of criminal proceeding as against the petitioners at Daltonganj will be a miscarriage of justice and therefore the same requires to be corrected. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 496 of 2009, including the order dated 2.9.2009, passed by Shri A. Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Daltonganj, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed and set aside. The complainant is, however, at liberty to present the complaint before the appropriate Court, which has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 10. Since the proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 496 of 2009 has been quashed on the basis that the Court at Daltonganj does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case, the other contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have not been gone into in this order. 11. These applications are allowed and disposed of. Applications allowed.