Not understood the section.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 30 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.
When an act is an offence, due to anything, which has been done, and of a consequence, which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
What does this section want to say. any judgment can explain.
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 30 August 2011
In whose local jurisdiction any offence has been done the said court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. There are so many decision given by the HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SUBJECT MATTER
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 31 August 2011
I agree with our expert one of them is below
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 917 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8078 of 2010)
Sunita Kumari Kashyap .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8079 of 2010)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) The only issue for consideration in both the appeals is
whether criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant herein
at Gaya against her husband and his relatives are
maintainable or not for lack of jurisdiction?
1
.
3) Brief facts:
(a) The appellant herein got married to Sanjay Kumar Saini -
respondent No.2 herein, on 16.04.2000 as per the Hindu rites
and ceremonies at Gaya. According to the appellant, at the
time of marriage, her father gifted all the household utensils,
Almirah, Double Bed, Dining Table, Fridge, Television and an
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash. In addition to the same,
her father spent so much money to solemnize the marriage
and for gifts to other family members of her husband. In spite
of the same, immediately after the marriage, she was blamed
for bringing less dowry by her in-laws and they started
harassing and torturing her. Her husband also used to
support his family members to torture her. It is her further
grievance that her husband demanded an additional amount
of Rs. 4 lakhs from her parents for renovation of their house at
Ranchi. When she was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of
her matrimonial home at Ranchi and brought to her parental
home at Gaya. After giving birth to a girl child the
circumstances became even worse and everyone started
blaming her that she had brought an additional burden on
2
.
them. After some time, her husband came out with a new
demand that unless her father gives his house at Gaya to him
she will not be taken back to her matrimonial home at Ranchi.
Having continuous torture and unbearable nature of
treatment by her husband and in-laws for years and years,
having no other option, the appellant lodged a First
Information Report (in short "FIR") being No. 66 of 2007 under
Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code (in short "IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short "D.P. Act") at Magadh Medical
College Police Station, Gaya.
b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusal of the charge-
sheet, found a prima facie case against the accused persons,
accordingly, took cognizance of offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against all of them and transferred the
case to the Court of sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya
for trial. Though an objection was raised stating that the
Court at Gaya has no jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate,
3
.
after considering all the relevant materials including the
allegations in the complaint, rejected the said objection.
c) Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons
preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42478 of 2009 before the
High Court of Judicature at Patna. By order dated
19.03.2010, the High Court found that the proceedings at
Gaya are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and quashed
the entire proceedings in Magadh Medical College Police
Station Case No. 66 of 2007 with liberty to the appellant
herein to file the same in appropriate Court. Following the
said order, the High Court on 29.04.2010 allowed Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 45153 of 2009 filed by Sanjay Kumar Saini
- the husband (respondent No.2 herein) and quashed the
criminal proceedings lodged against him.
d) Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High
Court on 19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 42478 of
2009 and 29.04.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45153 of
2009, the appellant-wife has filed the above appeals before
this Court by way of special leave petitions.
4
.
4) Heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for respondent
No.2 and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 - State.
5) Inasmuch as the issue is confined to territorial
jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the
appellant-wife, there is no need to go into other factual
aspects. Since the SDJM has found that the Court at Gaya
has jurisdiction to try the accused persons for offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and the High Court
reversed the said decision and found that the proceedings at
Gaya are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction, it is
desirable to refer the relevant provisions and the contents of
FIR.
6) Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short "Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in
inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are
as follows:
5
.
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial -. Every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
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 a 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.
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence
ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything
which has been done and of a consequence which has
ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or
such consequence has ensued."
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
6
.
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.
7) Keeping the above provisions in mind, let us consider the
allegations made in the complaint. On 17.10.2007, Sunita
Kumari Kashyap - the appellant herein made a complaint to
the Inspector In-charge, Magadh Medical College Police
Station, Gaya. In the complaint, the appellant, after narrating
her marriage with Sanjay Kumar Saini, respondent No.2
herein on 16.04.2000 stated that what had happened
immediately after marriage at the instance of her husband and
his family members' ill-treatment, torture and finally
complained that she was taken out of the matrimonial home at
Ranchi and sent to her parental Home at Gaya with the threat
that unless she gets her father's house in the name of her
husband, she has to stay at her parental house forever. In the
said complaint, she also asserted that her husband
pressurized her to get her father's house in his name and
7
.
when she denied she was beaten by her husband. It was also
asserted that after keeping her entire jewellery and articles, on
24.12.2006, her husband brought her at Gaya and left her
there warning that till his demands are met, she has to stay at
Gaya and if she tries to come back without meeting those
demands she will be killed. It was also stated that from that
date till the date of complaint, her in-laws never enquired
about her. Even then she called them but they never talked to
her. Perusal of the entire complaint, which was registered as
an FIR, clearly shows that there was ill-treatment and cruelty
at the hands of her husband and his family members at the
matrimonial home at Ranchi and because of their actions and
threat she was forcibly taken to her parental home at Gaya
where she initiated the criminal proceedings against them for
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406/34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Among the offences, offence
under Section 498A IPC is the main offence relating to cruelty
by husband and his relatives. It is useful to extract the same
which is as under:
8
.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand."
8) Similar allegations as found in the complaint in the case
on hand with reference to the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC were considered by this Court in
the following decisions:
i) In Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) vs. Prashant Kumar
Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30, 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
were the husband, parents-in-law and two sisters-in-law of the
9
.
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
10
.
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 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
11
.
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. Ultimately, accepting the stand of
the appellant, this Court held as under:
"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."
ii) In State of M.P. vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another,
(2003) 11 SCC 126, again in a similar circumstance,
considering the provisions of Section 179 with reference to the
complaint relating to the offences under Section 498A read
with Section 34 IPC, this Court held as under:
"6. The above Section contemplates two courts having
jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any
one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local
jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court
within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued.
When the allegation is that the miscarriage took place at
12
.
Jabalpur it cannot be contended that the court at Jabalpur
could not have acquired jurisdiction as the acts alleged
against the accused took place at Indore."
9) Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents fairly stated that there is no dispute about the
jurisdiction of the Court at Gaya insofar as against the
husband, however, in respect of other relatives of the husband
in the absence of any act at Gaya, the said Court has no
jurisdiction and if at all, the wife has to pursue her remedy
only at Ranchi. In support of his contention, he relied on a
decision of this Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs.
Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 100
in particular, paragraph 12 of the said decision which reads as
under:
"12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of
action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.
In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place where the
offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action
for initiation of the proceedings against the accused."
It is true that Section 177 of the Code refers to the local
jurisdiction where the offence is committed. Though the
expression "cause of action" is not a stranger to criminal
cases, in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code and in the
light of the specific averment in the complaint of the appellant
13
.
herein, we are of the view that the said decision is not
applicable to the case on hand.
10) Mr. Sanyal also relied on a decision of this Court in
Bhura Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another,
(2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein following the decision in Y.
Abraham Ajith and Others (supra), this Court held that
"cause of action" having arisen within the jurisdiction of the
court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by
the court where no part of offence was committed. For the
same reasons, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while
there is no dispute as to the proposition in view of the fact that
in the case on hand, the offence was a continuing one and the
episode at Gaya was only a consequence at the continuing
offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the
complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. In view of
the above reason, both the decisions are not applicable to the
facts of this case and we are unable to accept the stand taken
by Mr. Sanyal.
11) We have already adverted to the details made by the
appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by
14
.
the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the
hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the
fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental
home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire
consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold
that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence
in this case was a continuing one having been committed in
more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the
learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with
the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the
offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was
only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill-
treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section
178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the
complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill-
treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the
hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing
offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other
occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part,
therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is
15
.
clearly attracted.
12) In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the
impugned order of the High Court holding that the
proceedings at Gaya are not maintainable due to lack of
jurisdiction cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the
High Court dated 19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc. No. 42478 of
2009 and another order dated 29.04.2010 in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 45153 of 2009 are set aside. In view of the same, the
SDJM, Gaya is permitted to proceed with the criminal
proceedings in trial Nos. 1551 of 2008 and 1224 of 2009 and
decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that
we have not expressed anything on the merits and claims of
both parties and our above conclusion is confined to the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gaya. Both the criminal
appeals are allowed.
...........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
...........................................J.
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 01 September 2011
