Hemanta Moharana and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Hemanta Moharana and ors. vs State of Orissa and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Orissa Decided Dec 21, 2007

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/536716

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/536716
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: Pradip Mohanty, J.
Decided On: Dec 21, 2007
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hemanta Moharana and ors.

Respondent

State of Orissa and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka
Reported In: 105(2008)CLT316; II(2008)DMC180

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - ..........the same on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.2. petitioner no. 1 is the husband of damaayanti, the sister of opposite party no. 2. on a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, the learned sdjm took cognizance of the offence under sections 498a/406 ipc read with section 4 of the dowry prohibition act against the petitioners and issued processes against them. challenging the said order, the petitioner approached this court in criminal misc. case no. 760 of 2006, wherein territorial jurisdiction of the sdjm, bargarh to entertain the complaint was questioned. the said misc. case was disposed of on 13.04.2006 granting liberty to the petitioners to raise the point of jurisdiction before the trial court, which would look into the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before the trial court with a prayer to drop the proceeding on the ground of jurisdiction. the trial court, however, rejected the said petition with the finding that a part of the offence has been committed within its jurisdiction and issued nbws against the petitioners.3. learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the entire allegation made in the complaint petition does not disclose if any part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the sdjm, bargarh. he further submitted that section 177 cr.p.c. clearly lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, and it is the duty of the court to see whether the occurrence had taken place within its jurisdiction. the trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. he further submitted that the petitioners are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the sdjm, dhenkanal and the cause of action, if any, so far as the offence under section 498a is concerned, has taken place within the said jurisdiction. therefore, they prayed for dropping the criminal.....

Full Judgment

Pradip Mohanty, J.

1. By this revision petition, the Petitioners assail the legality and propriety of the Order Dated 30.08.2006 passed by the SDJM, Bargarh in ICC Case No. 57 of 2004 and pray to quash the same on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Damaayanti, the sister of opposite party No. 2. On a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2, the Learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioners and issued processes against them. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 760 of 2006, wherein territorial jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh to entertain the complaint was questioned. The said misc. case was disposed of on 13.04.2006 granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise the point of jurisdiction before the Trial Court, which would look into the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a petition before the Trial Court with a prayer to drop the proceeding on the ground of jurisdiction. The Trial Court, however, rejected the said petition with the finding that a part of the offence has been committed within its jurisdiction and issued NBWs against the Petitioners.

3. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the entire allegation made in the complaint petition does not disclose if any part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh. He further submitted that Section 177 Cr.P.C. clearly lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, and it is the duty of the Court to see whether the occurrence had taken place within its jurisdiction. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He further submitted that the Petitioners are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the SDJM, Dhenkanal and the cause of action, if any, so far as the offence under Section 498A is concerned, has taken place within the said jurisdiction. Therefore, they prayed for dropping the criminal proceeding before the SDJM, Bargarh.

4. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently contended that the Trial Court rightly took cognizance as a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The marriage took place at Bargarh and demand for dowry was made at Bargarh. After the marriage, as dispute arose, there was an attempt for settlement, which also took place at Bargarh. At the time of settlement, Petitioner No. 1 throttled the neck of amayanti and did not agree to take her back without T.V. and cash of Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that a part of the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh.

5. In support of their respective contentions, both parties relied upon the decisions in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai 2004 (29) OCR (SC) 241, Manish Ratan v. State of M.P. 2007 (1) OLR (SC) 528, Hiralal Agarwal v. State of Orissa 2006 (34) OCR 702 and 2007, Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka AIR SCW 4012.

6. Perused the records and the decisions cited by the parties. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh. In terms of Section 177 Cr.P.C, for initiation of a proceeding against an accused in a particular Court, the first and foremost thing for determination is the place where the offence is committed. But, Section 178 Cr.P.C, which speaks about place of inquiry or trial, lays down as follows:

178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or

(d) 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 of such local areas.

7. In the instant case, part of the cause of action has arisen at Bargarh inasmuch as the marriage took place at Bargarh and the Petitioners made demand for dowry at Bargarh. After the Petitioners ill-treated Damayanti, both physically and mentally, due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand, she came and stayed at Bargarh in her parental house. The meeting for settlement was held in the parental house where Petitioner No. 1 throttled the neck of Damayanti and asked her to come with money, otherwise he would leave her. In other words, he did not agree to take back Damaayanti unless the money was paid.

8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that a part of the offence alleged in the complaint petition was committed at Bargarh. Therefore, the instant case is squarely covered by clause (b) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. and this Court holds that the Court at Bargarh, has jurisdiction to try the case.

In the result, the CRLREV is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2007 Same Parties Hemanta Moharana and ors. vs State of Orissa and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Pradip Mohanty, J.

Criminal