there is nothing else u can do except filing for divorce and fighting her false cases on merits.
498a =
if no jurisdiction is created in the complaint, then file application before the trial court itself to dismiss the case and return the FIR to the complainant. Also apply to get exemption from personal attendance.
DV =
u dont need to be present personally.
mediation =
refuse all sort of mediation.
tell the courts that she filed false cases and u plead NOT GUILTY and want to be tried
when hit by FALSE criminal cases, the easiest way out is to fight the cases on merits and get acquittal.
rulings for ur 498a case - territorial jurisdiction :
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2768 OF 2008
Shekhar Shivdas Mahire vs Sou. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire
on 13 April, 2010
8. From the perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that the entire allegations in the FIR is regarding ill treatment by the accused persons at her matrimonial home at Nashik. The only averment in the complaint on which the learned counsel for the complainant relies so as to bestow the court at Sahada with jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, is to the effect that she used to inform her father on telephone regarding the ill treatment and on other occasions whenever she used to go to Sahada she used to inform regarding demand of dowry to her parents. Taking the allegation in the FIR at its face value, it cannot be said that there is even a whisper of any instance regarding the ill treatment within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Sahada.(Page 3, Clause no. 8)
– – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – –
It can thus be clearly seen that the Apex Court in clear terms had held that the offence under Section 498-A is not a continuing offence. Merely because the complainant has left the matrimonial house on account of the ill treatment by her husband and resides with her parents, cannot be a ground to bestow the court at the place where the parents reside, a jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.(Page 5)
– – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – –
15. In the present case as already discussed herein above, there are no allegations of any ill treatment at the place where the parents of the complainant resided. The entire allegations pertain to the matrimonial home of the complainant i.e. Nashik. In that view of the matter, the proceedings before the court at JMFC, Sahada are not tenable.(Page 6, Clause no. 15)
2.
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr
on 17 August, 2004
2004 (8) SCC 100
The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. 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.
While in civil cases, normally the expression "cause of action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression "cause of action" is therefore not a stranger to criminal cases.
It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise.
The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action".
The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts.
The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In "Words and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf.
In Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition) it has been stated as follows:
"Cause of action" has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. "Cause of action" has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action".
When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
3.
Supreme Court of India
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 587 of 2008
Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
4. The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.
hmM Ñï>rH$moZ ‘m. gdm}ƒ ݶm¶mb¶mMo nwT>rb {ZH$mbmVhr {XgyZ ¶oVmo …-
4.
Supreme Court of India
CASE NO. : Appeal (crl.) 210 of 2000
Manish Ratan & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 1 November, 2006
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.
(Page 3)
‘m. nQ>Zm Cƒ ݶm¶mb¶ ¶m§Zr ‘mZ{gH$ ì¶Wm (Mental Agony) {df¶r nwT>rb à‘mUo {ZarjU Zm|X{dbo Amho.
5.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8726 of 2009
Bhagwati Prasad Kyal & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr
on 14 December, 2011
19. Similarly, section 179 of the Cr. P.C is also not applicable in the present case because for application of section 179 of the Cr. P.C there must be consequence of an act or illegal omission. The words "consequence which has ensued" obviously, mean "by reason of any consequence" that is consequence must be necessary ingredient of the offence and where the act itself is complete offence irrespective of any consequence which has ensued, section 179 of the Cr. P.C does not apply and at the place where act was committed determines the jurisdiction. In the present case, the alleged illegal demand and torture were made at Raniganj, Burdwan, West Bengal and, merely, after ouster from her matrimonial home the opposite party no.2 came at Muzaffarpur and she suffered there from mental agony, it can not be said that part of the alleged occurrence has also taken place at Muzaffarpur. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no consequences of the alleged occurrence have happened at Muzaffarpur, Bihar and the offence of section 498A of the IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act were completed at Raniganj district Burdwan, West Bengal and, so, I am of the considered view that section 179 of the Cr. P.C is not applicable in the present case.
20. In Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs Inspector of Police Chennai & another reported in (2004) 8 Supreme court cases 100 at para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that to decide the question of jurisdiction of a court the crucial question is as to whether any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned or not and in essence, it is the cause of action for initiation of proceedings against the accused.
21. Therefore, in view of the above stated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court, I have no hesitation to hold that the court of Muzaffarpur, Bihar had got no jurisdiction to entertain complaint of opposite party no.2.
22. In course of hearing, a decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1674 Sunita kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar & another was brought to my notice but the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case because admittedly, in the aforesaid decision, the husband of the complainant had given threatening of dire consequence at Gaya the natal place of the aforesaid complainant and that was the reason the Apex court of the country has held that the court at Gaya had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by complainant of the aforesaid case. So far as the present case is concerned, according to the averments of the complaint petition itself, none of the part of the alleged occurrence has taken place at Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
(4) ‘m. gdm}ƒ ݶm¶mb¶ VgoM ‘m. {X„r Cƒ ݶm¶mb¶ ¶m§Zr n{hbr I~a Ahdmb Zm|X{dUo, Vnmg, ¶mo½¶ A{YH$ma AgUmè¶m ݶm¶mb¶mH$S>o AWdm nmobrg ñQ>oeZH$S>o n{hbr I~a Ahdmb nmR>{dUo ¶m ~m~VMr ‘mJ©Xe©H$ VÎdo gm§{JVbr AmhoV.
6.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court
W.P.(Crl.) No.1266/2007
Sonu And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 10 October, 2007
5. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is that in the event of the investigating officer arriving at a conclusion that crime was not committed within his jurisdiction, the FIR should be forwarded to the PS having the jurisdiction.
6. In the present case there is no allegation made in the FIR itself that a part of the crime was committed in Delhi. The parties never lived in Delhi. Marriage took place in U.P. Matrimonial home was in Patiala and alleged crime of dowry demand was allegedly committed in Patiala (Punjab). No investigation is needed to come to the conclusion that no part of crime was committed in Delhi and the alleged crime was committed either in U.P. or Patiala. PS Malviya Nagar even if registered the FIR should have transferred it to the Police Station of Patiala where the offence was committed. Normally in all such cases, zero FIR is registered at a Police Station at Delhi and FIR is transferred to the concerned police station where crime is committed. Though there is no illegality in registration of FIR, but retaining of this FIR with PS Malviya Nagar raises doubt about bonafides of SHO.
