Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 612 (JHR)

Unnoti Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-18

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : In these applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1849 of 2006 including the order dated 8.8.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498-A/34 and Section 494 of the Indian penal Code. 2. A complaint case was instituted being C.P. Case No. 1849 of 2006, in which it was alleged that the complainant is the legally married wife of accused no. 1 and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 according to Hindu Rites & Customs. It has been submitted that after the marriage, all the accused persons started torturing the complainant for not fulfilling the demand of a Hero Honda Motorcycle. It is alleged that the accused persons had driven her out from the matrimonial house in the year 2005 and on 24.10.2006, the accused persons had assaulted the complainant and were planning to burn her but somehow she managed to run and reach her parental house. 3. Upon conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant and her witness, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate for the offence under sections 498-A/34 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the State. No one appears for O.P. No. 2. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 708 of 2008 are the second wife as well as the husband of the complainant, whereas the petitioner no. 1 and 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 589 of 2008 are the parents in law, petitioner no. 3 is the brother in law and petitioner no. 4 is the sister in law of the complainant. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire allegations are said to have taken place in West Bengal, which has been admitted by the complainant on S.A. and such circumstance do point to malicious prosecution foisted upon the petitioners. 4 is the sister in law of the complainant. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire allegations are said to have taken place in West Bengal, which has been admitted by the complainant on S.A. and such circumstance do point to malicious prosecution foisted upon the petitioners. It has been submitted that the only incident, which had taken place in Dhanbad, is of an allegation of assault by the husband of the complainant but the same also does not reveal any offence under section 498-A of the IPC and at best it can be a case under section 323 IPC but no cognizance has been taken under the said section. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence as per the own version of the complainant is said to have taken place ten years back when the petitioner no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 708 of 2008 had solemnized second marriage with the petitioner no. 1. It has, therefore, been submitted that considering the entire facts of the case, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. From perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that though the parental house of the complainant is situated in the district of Dhanbad but the entire incident as alleged had taken place in the district of Purulia. The complainant in course of her examination on S.A. had categorically stated on a court question that the petitioner no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 708 of 2008 had solemnized marriage with the petitioner no. 1 ten years prior to the institution of the case and the incidents are said to have taken place in the State of West Bengal. Although a passing reference has been made about the assault committed upon the complainant by the husband for taking ‘bidai’ of the complainant but nothing has been stated that there was any allegation of demand of dowry, which was made at Dhanbad or that the assault was made on account of such non fulfillment of demand of dowry. It thus appears that allegations of demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and the assault inflicted upon the complainant is confined to the State of West Bengal and in view of such factual position, no criminal case can proceed for the offence under section 498-A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It thus appears that allegations of demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and the assault inflicted upon the complainant is confined to the State of West Bengal and in view of such factual position, no criminal case can proceed for the offence under section 498-A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. With respect to the question of territorial jurisdiction, as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reference may be made to the case of Amrendra Jyoti and Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., 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". It thus appears that even if it is assumed that the petitioners had indeed assaulted and tortured on account of non fulfillment of dowry in the State of West Bengal, the same cannot be said to be a continuing offence so as to include Dhanbad within the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Apart from the question of territorial jurisdiction having been decided in favour of the petitioners, the allegation also seems to have been made belatedly. Considering what has been stated above, there being merit in these applications, the same is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1849 of 2006 including the order dated 8.8.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 498-A/34 and Section 494 of the Indian penal Code is quashed and set aside. Application allowed.