Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1273 (JHR)

Md. Eqbal Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-27

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant application has been filed against the order taking cognizance under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. by the Court of Sri Dhananjay Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1942 of 2008 vide his order dated 20th April, 2009. 3. The prosecution case in short is that Sahnaz Bano complainant of this case who is O.P. No.2 herein filed a case on 08.10.2008 against the petitioners-accused no.1 to 3 that her marriage was solemnized on 16.04.2006 with Md. Iqbal Ansari according to Muslim rites at Gaya. At the time of marriage various gifts including cash and articles were given but the accused persons were not satisfied with the above presentations. Consequently she was being tortured physically and mentally. The complainant was also physically assaulted by accused persons. She fell ill but accused persons did not provided any medical aid to her rather expired medicines were administered to her. The father of the complainant was also being threatened through mobile-phone that if the demands are not fulfilled, the complainant would be killed. Ultimately, the complainant was driven out from the matrimonial house then she took shelter at her father's residence at Jamshedpur. They tried to mediate but accused persons refused to allow her to enter in the matrimonial home and also refused to return the gifts and articles given at the time of marriage. Aggrieved by these acts of the accused persons she filed a complaint case before the Court at Jamshedpur which was numbered as C/1 Case No.1942 of 2008 with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court below after recording the statement took cognizance only under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. on 20.04.2009. This order is challenged here. 4. Mr. Sahil, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-accused submitted that the cognizance taken under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is bad in law on the ground that the court below had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance because the marriage was solemnized at Gaya and as per the complaint petition the torture was also meted out upon her at Gaya, therefore the court at Jamshedpur had erred in taking cognizance. He further submitted that in the similar nature of case this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Kumari Seema Jha & Ors with Ram Nandan Jha & Ors. and Sudhanshu Jha & Ors Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2015 (4) East Cr. C. 513(Jhr), it was found that the court at Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence and accordingly the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceedings were quashed. 5. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand assisted by Mr. G.N. Chandra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that the court below have explained the substance of charge and the case has proceeded to the evidence stage. He further submitted that Section 178(c) of the Cr.P.C. applies in this case as the offence is a continuing offence, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one. In this case although the marriage was solemnized at Gaya but the torture also continued at Jamshedpur while the complainant was residing in her father's house. The mobile-phone was used in continuing the offence of torture. They relied on a decision in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301 in which it was held that the offence was a continuing and episode at Gaya was only consequence of continuing offence of harassment. Therefore, the S.D.J.M., Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. He also placed reliance in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (SMT) Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30 in which the allegation of torture demand, maltreatment and humiliation at the house of her in-laws were there. The husband had gone to the house of her parent and had assaulted her then Section 178(a) of the Cr.P.C. is attracted and the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. At this juncture counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case of Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. The husband had gone to the house of her parent and had assaulted her then Section 178(a) of the Cr.P.C. is attracted and the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. At this juncture counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case of Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2015(1) East Cr C 231(SC) and placed para 8 of the judgment that mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent and the threats given by the appellant over the telephone, the court held that the court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence and accordingly appeal was allowed. As in that case, the torture were committed within the jurisdiction of the court at Ambikapur. This case of Amarendu Jyoti(supra) were also considered by this Court while considering the case of Kumari Seema Jha(supra) and found that the court at Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. 7. Considering, the above pleadings of the parties as well as the decision cited on behalf of both the parties, this Court find that the marriage solemnized and torture were carried out at Gaya, therefore, the Court at Jamshedpur has no territorial jurisdiction as the complainant was started residing after she was being driven out from her matrimonial home at Gaya. The judgment cited in the case of Kumari Seema Jha(supra) squarely cover the instant case, therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 20.04.2009 passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1942 of 2008, is hereby, quashed. 8. In the result this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 9. Counsel for the O.P. No.2 prayed permission for filing of case at appropriate jurisdiction of the Court. 10. Liberty is granted to the complainant for withdrawal of her complaint petition from the court below for filing the same before the appropriate court with competent jurisdiction, if so, advised.