Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 254 (GAU)

Tunu Devi v. State of Assam

2018-02-09

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. The present application under section 407 read with 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for transfer of the CR Case No. 28/2014 pending in the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st class (in short JMFC), Karbi Anglong to the court of Ld. CJM, Nagaon. Necessary brief required to be noticed is as follows: 2. The respondent Bapi Das married the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 (Jina Das) in the year 2008 and thereafter parties lived as husband and wife uttarborbill at Karbi Anglong and out of the wedlock a daughter was also born. The respondent lodged the complaint on 02.7.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong Diphu with the allegation that the husband of petitioner No. 1 Sri Gambhir Nath taken away his wife Jina on 18.05.2013 and after long time she returned to the respondent but however on 20.04.2014 said Gambhir Nath came to the house of respondent at Uttarborbill and taken away his wife along with Rs. 27,000/- without his consent, in his absence. When the respondent went to bring back his wife on 8.5.2014 to Dhing then all the family members (that is petitioners herein) along with Gambhir Nam abused and beaten him to dire consequences and his request to return the money as well as wife was turned down. The aforesaid complaint petition was registered as a CR Case No. 28/2014 under section 379, 506, 323, 34 IPC as against the present petitioners along with said Gambhir Nam. The court took the cognizance of the offence by its order date 14.7.2014 and issued summons to all the accused persons (petitioners herein) for appearance before the court. 3. According to the petitioners herein cognizance taken by the court is bad in law in as much as the court at Karbi Anglong has no jurisdiction to trial the case as no cause of action arose in Karbi Anglong. It contends there are two sets of allegations in different case and time and out of which one occurrence on 6.4.2014 is residence of the respondent at karbil Anglong and other alleged incident is on 8.5.2014 is at Nagaon. It contends there are two sets of allegations in different case and time and out of which one occurrence on 6.4.2014 is residence of the respondent at karbil Anglong and other alleged incident is on 8.5.2014 is at Nagaon. Therefore, the court at Nagaon only has a jurisdiction to register and trial the case in terms of section 177/178 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the petitioners also apprehends injury to appear in the court of Karbi Anglong due to the threatening made by the respondent to the petitioners, apart from their inconvenience and financial constraint to appear before the court. Raising such grievances present petition has been moved by the petitioners for transferring the case from the court of Karbi Anglong to the Court of Nagaon. 4. Opposing such prayer of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating all about the conduct of the petitioners (all details not discussed which is not required) that they have try to project a manipulated story only to resist it criminal case. As regard the occurrence it is admitted that two distinct of occurrence took place the different time one of which took place on 6.4.2016 in the village of the respondent Uttarborbil, Karbi Anglong and one of the occurrence took place at Dhing at Nagaon. As per the law of the land when occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of two or more places, then the victim can prefer any of the court having jurisdiction. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners neither returned the money nor his wife who is willing to return to him and be also apprehend threat from the petitioners if the case is transferred to Nagaon. However, respondent has no objection if the case is transferred to a third place SDJM, Hojai, Shankardev Nagar. 5. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and the pleadings between the parties. 6. The factual background reveals that respondent No. 2 is the son-in-law/brother-in-law of the petitioner and it is the allegation that they have kept the wife of the respondent with them without allowing his wife to return the respondent. 5. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and the pleadings between the parties. 6. The factual background reveals that respondent No. 2 is the son-in-law/brother-in-law of the petitioner and it is the allegation that they have kept the wife of the respondent with them without allowing his wife to return the respondent. The approach of the respondent to bring her back failed and out of the two incident that is on 26.4.2014 and 08.05.2014, one of the incident of 26.4.2014 occurred at the place of residence of the respondent No. 2 while his father-in-law (one of the accused) took away the wife of the respondent No. 2 from his house at Uttarborbil, district Karbi Anglong and in that event, the court of Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong has a jurisdiction to trial the case. However, the second occurrence dated 8.5.2014 took place at Nagaon in the house of the petitioners while they refused to return the wife of the respondent and also rebuke and assault him if may be noted there is few days gap between the two occurrence and the respondent being resident of district of Karbi Anlong certainly will file the complaint petition before the court where he resides. 7. Let us see the relevant legal provision in this respect as to which court can trial such cases which has different cause of action at different places. The provision of Section 177 Cr.P.C. prescribes ordinary place of enquiry and trial as below Every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. On the next regarding the place of enquiry and trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas and offence was committed, the section 178 provides that (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or (c) where an offence is a continue one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be enquired into or trial by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. The above provision provides that any of the court where part of the offence committed has jurisdiction to trial the case. 8. The above provision provides that any of the court where part of the offence committed has jurisdiction to trial the case. Further by virtue of Section 179 of the Cr.P.C even the course within whose local jurisdiction, the repercussion/effect of criminal act occurs would have jurisdiction in the matter ( AIR 2012 SC 1007 Lee Kun Hee v. State of Uttar Pradesh). Obviously, the above provision made it clear, that in the given circumstances in the instant case any of the court at Nagaon or Karbi Anglong has jurisdiction to try the case and particularly the court at karbi Anglong where the last occurrence took place certainly have jurisdiction to try the case so from the point of jurisdiction there is no illegality regarding trial in the court of Karbi Anglong. 9. On the other hand, the other two, three grounds that has been taken by the petitioners to face the trial at Karbi Anglong about the threat made by the respondent as well as their inconvenience to appear before the court deserve no consideration as there is nothing to show about the threat made to the petitioners. Mere apprehension of threat is not sufficient unless some genuine apprehension is proved. Moreso, while the respondent No. 2 is none other than the son-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioners matter of apprehension of threat in his hands appears to be fabricated and groundless. It appears that they have just avoid to go the place of respondent No. 2 where he resides and they have not yet settled the dispute and did not allow to restore the relation of husband and wife of the respondent No. 2 and the daughter of respondent No. 1. 1. The provision of Section 407 provide as follows: Section 407: Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals- whenever it is made appear to the High Court- 1. (a) that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be held in any criminal court subordinate thereto, or (b) That some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this court or will tend to the general convenience of the parties all witness or is expedient for in ends of justice, It may order transfer of such cases to any other court of competent jurisdiction. 10. 10. Turning to the case in hand as has been discussed above it is more than apparent that the petitioners herein failed to prove any of the cogent ground for transferring the matter. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the prayer for transfer is devoid the merit and deserve no consideration. It will be better for the parties to settle the matter among themselves being the family related matter. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.