Alleged Dowry demand at hubby’s town NOT continuing offence if NO demand at Girl’s place !! So case to be tried at hubby’s town. Hon Supreme court of India transfers case to Husband’s town

* Matrimonial home at Jabalpur
* Complaint lodged by wife’s father with police Jabalpur on 19.04.1997 alleging that husband & co * have been ill-treating his daughter and demanded dowry
* No criminal case was lodged at Jabalpur.
* Case at Datia court where wife resides
* High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Crl. Revision No. 98 of 1998 says Court at Datia has jurisdiction as it is a continuing offense !
* Supreme court distinguishes between continuing offense and offense committed once and for all and says dowry demands at husband’s place (Jabalpur) are NOT continuing offences at girl’s place (Datia)
* Case transferred to Husband’s place (Jabalpur)
* Good case to use whenever territorial Jurisdiction questions are asked

*************************************************************

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AUTHOR: S.B. SINHA
BENCH: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  210 of 2000
PETITIONER: Manish Ratan & Ors.                        
RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Anr.                        
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2006
BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J :

Application of Sections 177 and 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 1.09.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Crl. Revision No. 98 of 1998.

Appellant No. 1 was married with Meena, Respondent No. 2 herein at Niwari, Distt. Tikangarh. They were living at their matrimonial home at Jabalpur. Allegedly, a complaint was lodged by father-in-law of Appellant No. 1 with the police station, Jabalpur on 19.04.1997 alleging that the appellants have been ill-treating his daughter and demanded dowry. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Meena allegedly lodged another First Information Report against the appellants at the Police Station, Datia on 25.05.1997 whereupon a criminal case was registered. In the said complaint, the place of incident was said to have taken place in House No. 151, Adarsh Nagar Narbada Road, Jabalpur. The period during which the incident took place was said to be before November, 1995 till 25.08.1997. It was alleged:

      “7. That during the time of Dusshera the complainant’s
      husband Manish, Father in law S.S. Rattan, Mother in law
      Smt. Kiran and sister in law Menaka (Minni) illtreated her
      so much that she left her house and saved her life by some
      means and reached in her Mama’s house at Bhopal and from
      there she reached her house and since then she has been
      staying with her father.”

A criminal revision was filed by the appellants questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said criminal revision application has been dismissed opining that the offence being a continuing one, Datia Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

The High Court did not consider the question on the touchstone of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code. It is interesting to note that while arriving at the decision the High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee [(1997) 5 SCC 30], stating:

      “The High Court held that excepting against the husband,
      the complaint against other respondents related to the
      incidents taking place at Raigarh and as such, the criminal
      case on the basis of complaint made by the appellant was
      not maintainable against the said other respondents at
      Raipur but it was maintainable so far as the husband of the
      appellant was concerned. On these facts, the Apex Court
      took the view that the complaint reveals a continuing
      offence of the mal-treatment and humiliation meted 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. It was,
      therefore, held that in view of clause (c) of Section 178
      of Cr.P.C., the High Court was not right. The order passed
      by the High Court was set aside and the learned CJM, Raipur
      had jurisdiction to try the case. The facts of the present
      case are different. There is nothing in the complaint to
      show that any mal-treatment was given to the complainant at
      Datia. The allegations, which I may repeat here, are that
      the mal-treatment was given within a specific period at
      Jabalpur. There is nothing to show that any mal-treatment
      was given by any of the petitioners at Datia and under
      these circumstances, this case of Sujata Mukherjee does not
      help the learned counsel for the complainant in this case.”

By a curious process of reasoning, however, it was held:

      “They demanded a sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs and forced her to
      write a letter to her parents in that regard. She was
      beaten and kept starving. Somehow she managed to escape and
      went to her Mama’s place at Bhopal and from there she went
      to father’s place and was living there. Thus these facts go
      to show that she was forced to go to her father’s place on
      account of the fact that she was mal-treated; as demand of
      Rs. 7.00 lakhs was not fulfilled. As laid down in the
      aforesaid decision of this Court, the word ‘cruelty’ is not
      only the physical cruelty, the lady was forced to live at
      her father’s place on account of the torture of the inlaws
      and as such it can safely be said that there was also a
      mental cruelty. The cruelty and the terror of the in-laws
      continued even at the place of the father where she was
      living. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said
      that the harassment continued at the place where she was
      residing with her father. In view of the provision of
      Section 178 Cr.P.C., the offence may be inquired into and
      tried by a Court where the physical harassment, marpeet had
      taken place i.e. the in-laws’ place and also where the
      harassment continued i.e. the place where she was residing.
      Thus in view of the law laid down by this Court in the
      aforesaid authority with which I respectfully agree, the
      Court at Datia had also jurisdiction to try the case.”

It is not denied or disputed that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Datia Court. Section 177 of the Code ordains that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Interpretation of the term “ordinarily” will have to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in Section 178 thereof which reads as under:

      “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
      
      (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to
      be committed in more local areas than one, 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.”

Clause (c) of the said provision, thus, has been applied in the instant case.

Whether the allegations made in the complaint petition would constitute a continuing offence, thus, is the core question.

In a case of this nature, an offence cannot be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant is forced to leave her matrimonial home.

In State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Another [(1972) 2 SCC 890], it was stated:

      “A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of
      continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is
      committed once and for all. It is one of those offences
      which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule
      or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the
      liability for which continues until the rule or its
      requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion
      that such disobediance or non-compliance occurs and
      reoccurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction
      between the two kinds of offences is between an act or
      omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and
      an act or omission which continues, and therefore,
      constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which
      it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is
      thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is
      absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an
      act or omission is committed once and for all.”

In Sujata Mukherjee (supra) this Court held the offence to be a continuing one as specific allegations had been made against the husband that he had also gone to Raipur where the complaint was filed and had assaulted the appellant therein. It was in the aforementioned fact situation, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court holding that the incident at Raipur was not an isolated event stating:

      “At the hearing of these appeals, Mr Gambhir, the learned
      counsel appearing for the appellant, has 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, 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. Hence, the criminal case filed in the Court of the
      Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur was only maintainable
      against the respondent husband against whom some overt act
      at Raipur was alleged. But such case was not maintainable
      against the other respondents.”

This Court having regard to the peculiar fact situation obtaining therein held:

      “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 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. We, therefore, set
      aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the
      learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with
      the criminal case”

Sujata Mukherjee (supra) was distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 100] where noticing the interpretation of the expression “cause of action”, it was held that the expression “ordinarily” need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court. In that case the complaint itself disclosed that after 15.04.1997, the respondent left Nagercoil and went to Chennai and was staying there. Thus, having regard to the fact that all allegations according to the complainant took place at Nagercoil, it was held that the courts at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was held:

      “This Court held in that factual background that clause (c)
      of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case the
      factual position is different and the complainant herself
      left the house of the husband on 15-4-1997 on account of
      alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations.
      There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about
      any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting
      an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic
      of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of
      the offences cannot be applied.”

Yet again in Ramesh and Others v. State of T.N. [(2005) 3 SCC 507], Abraham Ajith (supra) was followed by this Court stating:

      “In the view we are taking, it is not necessary for us to
      delve into the question of territorial jurisdiction of the
      Court at Trichy in detail. Suffice it to say that on
      looking at the complaint at its face value, the offences
      alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or
      partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrates
      Court at Trichy. Prima facie, none of the ingredients
      constituting the offence can be said to have occurred
      within the local jurisdiction of that court. Almost all the
      allegations pertain to acts of cruelty for the purpose of
      extracting additional property as dowry while she was in
      the matrimonial home at Mumbai and the alleged acts of
      misappropriation of her movable property at Mumbai.
      However, there is one allegation relevant to Section 498-A
      from which it could be inferred that one of the acts giving
      rise to the offence under the said section had taken place
      in Chennai. It is alleged that when the relations of the
      informant met her in-laws at a hotel in Chennai where they
      were staying on 13- 10-1998, there was again a demand for
      dowry and a threat to torture her in case she was sent back
      to Mumbai without the money and articles demanded.
      
      Thus the alleged acts which according to the petitioner
      constitute the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 were
      done by the accused mostly in Mumbai and partly in Chennai.
      Prima facie, there is nothing in the entire complaint which
      goes to show that any acts constituting the alleged
      offences were at all committed at Trichy.”

The said decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

Our attention was drawn to the fact that no criminal case was lodged at Jabalpur. Our attention was further drawn to the fact that the investigation of the case is complete.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that, interest of justice would be subserved, while setting aside the order of the High Court, if in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct transfer of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. We accordingly do so. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Although the complainant has filed an application before us for impleading herself as a party, nobody has appeared on her behalf. We, therefore, direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur to issue notice to her. Keeping in view of the fact that Respondent No. 2 is residing at Datia, we would request the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur to accommodate her in the matter of fixing the date (s) of hearing as far as possible.

The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s