Judgment:
1 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 03.01.2014 Shri S.Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of Madhya Pradesh on advance notice.
Heard on admission.
On the allegation that she has been harassed in the matrimonial home at Chhindwara on demand of dowry, petitioner, a resident of Bhopal lodged an FIR on 17.08.2013 at police station Mahila, Bhopal for an offence under Section 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The report reflects major part of alleged harassment being meted out at Chhindwara and the alleged accused i.e.husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law being resident of Chhindwara.
Accordingly, while registering the report at zero number, the same was transferred to police station Kotwali Chhindwara, at Chhindwara the alleged offence has been registered vide crime No.762/2013 at police station Kotwali where the investigation is in progress.
The petitioner's grievance is that instead of registering an offence at Chhindwara, the same should have been registered and tried at Bhopal, where the cause of action has accrued.
2 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials.
Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
In the case at hand, the allegation as they appear in the FIR is that the petitioner was allegedly harassed and the demand for dowry was made at her matrimonial house at Chhindwara.
The alleged offence thus originate at Chhindwara and not at Bhopal where as per the petitioner the accused had been attending some marriage and had refused to take back the petitioner without meeting out the dowry demand.
Thus from the complaint lodged by the petitioner it is not established that the offence has been committed at Bhopal and not at Chhindwara.
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing 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 inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas.
In the case at hand as apparent from the allegations 3 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 in the FIR lodged by the petitioner that the offence is continuous in nature and therefore, the transfer of the case from Bhopal to Chhindwara cannot be faulted with.
In this context reference can be had of the decision in Sunita Kumari Kashyap v.
State of Bihar : (2011) 11 SCC301wherein it has been observed : "8..From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
However, when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area and takes place in different local areas as per Section 178, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence.
Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
12.
In Sujata Mukherjee versus Prashant Kumar Mukharjee, similar issue was considered by this Court and found that clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is attracted and the Magistrate at wife's parents' place has also jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In the said decision, wife was the appellant before this Court and the respondents 4 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 were the husband, parents-in-law and two sisters-in- law of the appellant Sujata Mukherjee.
The gist of the allegation of the appellant, Sujata Mukherjee was that on account of dowry demands, she had been maltreated and humiliated not only in the house of her in-laws at Raigarh but as a consequence of such events, the husband of the appellant had also come to the house of her parents at Raipur and assaulted her.
On behalf of the respondents therein, it was contended before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur that the criminal case was not maintainable before the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate because the cause of action took place only at Raigarh which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Raipur.
A prayer was also made to quash the summons issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by entertaining the said complaint of Smt Mukherjee.
As the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not inclined either to quash the summons or to transfer the criminal case to the competent court at Raigarh, the criminal revision petitions were filed before the High Court, one by all the five respondents and another by four of the respondents excluding the husband presumably because there was specific allegation against the husband that the husband had also gone to Raipur and had assaulted the appellant and as such the husband could not plead want of territorial jurisdiction.
Both the said criminal revision cases were disposed of by a common order dated 31.08.1989 by the High Court holding that the case 5 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 against the husband of the appellant alone is maintainable and in respect of other respondents related to the incidents taking place at Raigarh, hence, the criminal case on the basis of complaint made by the appellant is not maintainable at Raipur.
The said order of the High Court was challenged by the appellant-Sujata Mukherjee in this Court.
It was submitted that it will be evident from the complaint that the appellant has alleged that she had been subjected to cruel treatment persistently at Raigarh and also at Raipur and incident taking place at Raipur is not an isolated event, but consequential to the series of incidents taking place at Raigarh.
Therefore, it was contended that the High Court was wrong in appreciating the scope of the complaint and proceeding on the footing that several isolated events had taken place at Raigarh and one isolated incident had taken place at Raipur.
This Court basing reliance on Section 178 of the Code, in particular clauses (b) and (c).found that in view of allegations in the complaint that the offence was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Raipur, the learned Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted in such court.
13.
Ultimately, accepting the stand of the appellant, this Court held as under : "7..We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted 6 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part.
Therefore, clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted." In view whereof, no interference is caused.
Petition fails and is dismissed.
No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand