??????????????????????????
2006 (10) LJSOFT 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
(
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3318 OF 2005
12-7-2006
(S.P. KUKDAY, J.)
Jairam S/o. Martand Kahane & Ors.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearances :
Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri S.P. Daud, A.P.P. for the R/1 - State.
Shri N.R. Bhavar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 _ Section 179, 184, 482 _ Indian Penal Code, 1860 _ Section 498-A _ Cruelty to wife _ Place of trial _ Territorial jurisdiction _ Quashing of criminal proceedings.
Cruelty to wife _ Physical torture of the Respondent No.2 took place at her matrimonial house at Sangamner _ Concept of cruelty envisaged by explanation (b) of Section 498-A of IPC refers to a continuous offence and estranged wife continues to be subjected to cruelty though she is living at her parental house _ Wife was suffering from mental agony at parental house at Vaijapur on account of her estrangement _ Courts at Sangamner as well as at Vaijapur have territorial jurisdiction _ Court at Vaijapur had jurisdiction to try the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and also offences u/s 323, 504 and 506 of IPC which are committed in the course of same transaction by virtue of section 184 of Cr.P.C. (See para 9, 10, 12)
Held : a) "Chapter 13 of the Cr.P.C. refers to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in inquiries and trial. Normally under section 177 every offence has to be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it is committed. Section 178 enumerates the place of inquiry or trial and section 179 carves an exception in cases where the offence is committed at one place and the consequence occur at another place." (
b) "So far as the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. are concerned there is no dispute that these offences were committed at the matrimonial house of the Respondent No.2 at Pemgiri. However, so far as offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is concerned the offence made punishable under this section is continuous offence as it can be seen from the definition given in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code itself." (
c) "The concept of cruelty shows that the torture can be in various forms and last for a considerable period of time and spreads over various places. This being a continuous offence theory of cause and effect has to be made applicable to the concept of cruelty. Thus, if the wife is tortured at her matrimonial house and is driven out from the house. The wife has no other alternative than to take shelter at her parental house. In such a case the estrangement causes mental agony to the wife and adversely affects her well being. Therefore, the wife who is forced to live separately from her husband at the parental house suffers from the mental agony and her case falls within the four corners of section 498-A of I.P.C. It can be therefore seen that the concept of cruelty envisaged by explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the I.P.C., refers to a continuous offence and the estranged wife continues to be subjected to cruelty though she is living at her parental house." (
d) "The facts of the present case therefore, show that after returning to her parental house the wife continued to suffer mental agony and was driven to approach Criminal Court at Vaijapur for redresal of her grievance by initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioners. The facts, therefore, disclose that the wife was suffering from mental agony at parental house at Vaijapur on account of her estrangement. Therefore, the courts at Sangamner as well as at Vaijapur have territorial jurisdiction." (
e) "Having regard to the fact that the concept of cruelty refers to continuing offence and though the physical torture of the Respondent No.2 took place at her matrimonial house at Pemgiri on account of her desertion she continued to suffer mental agony while living at her parental house. Therefore, the court at Sangamner as well as Vaijapur have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and conduct trial. In this view of the matter the contentions of learned counsel for applicant that the Court at Vaijapur don't have jurisdiction and, therefore, the Criminal Proceeding taken up at the Court at Vaijapur should be quashed and set aside cannot be sustained. The Court at Vaijapur has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also those offences which are committed in the course of same transaction, by virtue of section 184 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court at Vaijapur. The offences can be tried at the Court of Vaijapur." (
Result : Application dismissed.
Case Law Referred :
State of
JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of both parties.
2. The Petitioners seek quashing of the Criminal proceedings initiated against them in respect of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C. at
3. The relevant facts in the nut shell are that, the Respondent No.2 Archana married petitioner No.1 on 5th January, 2005. After marriage she started living with her matrimonial family at Pemgiri, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. About 10-15 days after her marriage her ill-treatment started as she refused to bring Rs.20,000/- by way of dowry from her father. As a result of her refusal Respondent No.2 was subjected to mental and physical torture, she used to be assaulted and starved, kept awake throughout night, kept without clothes on her person during winter, cold water used to be thrown on her person and she used to be driven out from the house at odd hours of the night. Petitioner No.2 also used to assault her sister-in-law and applicant No.3 and 4 used to instigate their sons for subjecting Respondent No.2 to different kinds of torture. At the end on 20th January, 2005 Respondent No.2 was asked to bring Rs.25,000/- from her parents for the purpose of purchasing grocery for the grocery shop of Petitioners. When she refused she was driven out from the house on 18th of May, 2005 and was told that if she failed to bring money she will not be allowed to enter matrimonial house. After returning to her parental house at Vaijapur she lodged complaint with Vaijapur Police Station, however, no action was taken. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 filed Criminal complaint in the court of J.M.F.C., Vaijapur bearing R.C.C. No.167/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate found that the offence is cognizable and, therefore, issued direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to P.S.O. Vaijapur for registration of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and further directed that charge-sheet be submitted after investigation within one month. In pursuance of these directions the complaint was treated as an F.I.R. and offence came to be registered by Vaijapur Police Station. During the course of investigation petitioners were arrested. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer found that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Secs.498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. In this view of the matter the investigating officer presented charge-sheet to the court of J.M.F.C. at Vaijapur. The case was registered as M.A. No.1166/2005. And the petitioners came to be released on bail on 5th July, 2005.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the acts constituting the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. are committed at the matrimonial house therefore, the court at Sangamner has territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial. According to the learned counsel the court at Vaijapur doesn't have jurisdiction to try the case and, therefore, the Criminal Proceedings initiated at Vaijapur court, Dist. Aurangabad be quashed and set aside.
6. Chapter 13 of the Cr.P.C. refers to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in inquiries and trial. Normally under section 177 every offence has to be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it is committed. Section 178 enumerates the place of inquiry or trial and section 179 carves an exception in cases where the offence is committed at one place and the consequence occur at another place. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. reads as under
"S.179. 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."
7. To cover a case under this section it is essential that the act is done at one place and consequences which must form part of the offence alleged, have ensued at different place. In such a case both the courts where the act is done and where the consequences ensue have jurisdiction to try the offence.
8. In the present case the petitioners are being tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. along with other offences. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. are concerned there is no dispute that these offences were committed at the matrimonial house of the Respondent No.2 at Pemgiri. However, so far as offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is concerned the offence made punishable under this section is continuous offence as it can be seen from the definition given in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code itself. Section 498-A makes the conduct of husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty punishable. Explanation to this section defines cruelty, which reads as under:
"Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful 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) ................"
9. The legislative intent to include physical and mental torture is very clear from the explanation which defines concept of cruelty and refers to various forms of cruelty including mental and physical torture of the woman concerned which is likely to affect her health. The mental torture or abnormal behaviour which leads to causing mental agony to the wife is thus covered by the definition of cruelty. The concept of cruelty shows that the torture can be in various forms and last for a considerable period of time and spreads over various places. This being a continuous offence theory of cause and effect has to be made applicable to the concept of cruelty. Thus, if the wife is tortured at her matrimonial house and is driven out from the house. The wife has no other alternative than to take shelter at her parental house. In such a case the estrangement causes mental agony to the wife and adversely affects her well being. Therefore, the wife who is forced to live separately from her husband at the parental house suffers from the mental agony and her case falls within the four corners of section 498-A of I.P.C. It can be therefore seen that the concept of cruelty envisaged by explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the I.P.C., refers to a continuous offence and the estranged wife continues to be subjected to cruelty though she is living at her parental house.
10. In the present case the allegations by the wife are that she was subjected to torture at her matrimonial house and was finally driven out as she refused to bring Rs.25,000/- by way of dowry from her parents. After returning to her parental house at Vaijapur, she approached Vaijapur Police Station on 20th of May, 2005. However, as no action was taken she filed private complaint in the court of J.M.F.C., Vaijapur. After the directions were given by the Magistrate offence was registered by Vaijapur Police Station and during the investigation it was found that the petitioners have indeed committed offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The facts of the present case therefore, show that after returning to her parental house the wife continued to suffer mental agony and was driven to approach Criminal Court at Vaijapur for redresal of her grievance by initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioners. The facts, therefore, disclose that the wife was suffering from mental agony at parental house at Vaijapur on account of her estrangement. Therefore, the courts at Sangamner as well as at Vaijapur have territorial jurisdiction.
11. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kaushal and another with Ranjana Kaushal (Gupta) Vs. Suresh Kaushal and others, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 218. In that case Ranjana Kaushal married Suresh and was living at nuptial home at Indore. When she was carrying, she was subjected to physical torture at the matrimonial house and was taken back to her parental house at Jabalpur where miscarriage took place. The husband and another were charged for commission of offence under Sec.313 of I.P.C. In this background, making reference to Section 498-A of I.P.C. and section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Apex Court observed in para 6 of the report;
"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 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 miscarriage took place at
12. Having regard to the fact that the concept of cruelty refers to continuing offence and though the physical torture of the Respondent No.2 took place at her matrimonial house at Pemgiri on account of her desertion she continued to suffer mental agony while living at her parental house. Therefore, the court at Sangamner as well as Vaijapur have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and conduct trial. In this view of the matter the contentions of learned counsel for applicant that the Court at Vaijapur don't have jurisdiction and, therefore, the Criminal Proceeding taken up at the Court at Vaijapur should be quashed and set aside cannot be sustained. The Court at Vaijapur has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also those offences which are committed in the course of same transaction, by virtue of section 184 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court at Vaijapur. The offences can be tried at the Court of Vaijapur. Therefore, the application fails and is dismissed.
13. Rule is discharged. Stay vacated.
