Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Kumar Alias Pawan Kumar Pandey ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 11 March, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1985 of 2013
-----------
1. Devendra Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Pandey, Son of Bal Krishna
Pandey.
2. Bal Krishna Pandey, Son of Sri Chandrika Pandey.
3. Jayanti Devi @ Jaymanti Devi, Wife of Bal Krishna Pandey.
4. Sunita Mishra, daughter of Bal Krishna Pandey and wife of Sri
Ramesh Kumar Mishra, resident of Anandpuri Colony,P.S. Sadar,
P.O.& District-Hazaribagh.
5. Satyanarayan Pandey, Son of Bal Krishna Pandey, SL. Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 5 all are residents of Kundu Bungalow Road, Near
Electricity Officer, Madhupur,P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District-
Deoghar.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Anjali Devi, Wife of Devendra Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Pandey
and daughter of late Diwakar Pandey, resident of Kundu
Bungalow Road, near Electricity Officer, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.
Madhupur, District-Deoghar, at present residing at Korrah, Jabra
Road, New Colony, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District-Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Parties
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
-----
C.A.V. On 17.12.2014 Pronounced on_11/3/2015
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the
entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.563
of 2013, including the order dated 18.05.2013, passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder
cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under section
498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint
petition lodged by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 is that the
complainant was married with the petitioner no. 1 on 17.05.2006 and
after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house at Madhupur in
the district of Deoghar and lived happily as husband and wife for
three months. It has been alleged that subsequently the demand of
dowry started. On instigation of the accused persons, the
complainant was assaulted. It has further been alleged that on
20.08.2006, the petitioner no. 1 had abused the complainant and assaulted her resulting in termination of her pregnancy. Thereafter, it has been alleged that in spite of torture meted out to her, the -2- complainant tried to adjust but assault continued and in fact in May, 2009, the accused persons tried to kill her by setting her on fire. It has also been alleged that on 4.11.2007, the complainant gave birth to a girl child and assault and torture did not stop and the complainant suffered serious injuries when the motorcycle, which was being driven by the petitioner no. 1 deliberately dashed with another vehicle and the complainant and her child fell down from the motorcycle. It has been alleged that on 10th April, 2012, the complainant came back to her matrimonial house where she somehow managed to stay for 3-4 months in spite of abuse directed at her.
After conducting an inquiry by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken on 18.05.2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for the offences punishable under sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire allegations directed against the petitioners are false and concocted and in fact even from the own admission of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, the entire allegations, which have been made, have taken place in the district of Deoghar and no part of the occurrence has occurred in the district of Hazaribagh and as such the entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh to take cognizance. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the complainant was having a love affair with one Manish Pandey from before and she had left her matrimonial house and was residing with the said Manish Pandey and on complaint being made by the petitioner no. 1, Hisua P.S. Case no. 76 of 2012 was instituted. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had filed a divorce case on 22.12.2012 being Divorce Case No. 314 of 2012, which, however, was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 5.2.2013. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 had subsequently instituted a divorce suit being Divorce Suit No. 41 of 2013 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawadah under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and on 2.3.2013, notices were issued to the -3- respondent (complainant) and immediately thereafter the complaint petition was filed. He, therefore, submits that the surrounding facts reveal that only in order to satisfy her grudge against her inlaws, the complaint case was instituted, which is a mala fide action on the part of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgments in the case of Dhananjay Singh & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another, reported in 2010 3 JLJR 378, Arjun Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2006 1 JCR 183 (Jhr) and Sushila Agarwal and another Vs State of Jharkhand & another, reported in 2010 (4) JLJR 38.
Learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that even though the torture is said to have been levelled in the district of Deoghar but on account of the fact that the complainant is residing in her parental house situated within the district of Hazaribagh and she is suffering from mental cruelty, which is a consequence of the act of turning her out from her matrimonial house and therefore the same being a continuing offence, the learned court at Hazaribagh has the jurisdiction to try the offence. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and on proper appreciation of the averments made in the complaint petition as well as the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in such circumstances when admittedly a case has been made out by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, no interference is warranted in the said criminal proceedings.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the allegations, which have been levelled by the complainant, relate to her matrimonial house, which is situated in the district of Deoghar. The petitioner had filed a suit for dissolution of the marriage being Divorce Suit No. 41 of 2013, in which notices were issued on 2.3.2013 upon the complainant- opposite party no. 2 and thereafter on 23.03.2013, the complaint case was lodged by the complainant-opposite party no. 2. It has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that since offence is a continuing one, which still continues as the -4- complainant-opposite party no. 2 is residing at her parental house in the district of Hazaribagh but the said contention of the complainant- opposite party no. 2 is devoid of any merit in view of the fact that Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code do not include an offence of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to be a continuing offence. Nothing has been averred in the complaint petition to substantiate the fact that the offence is a continuing one and merely by asserting that on account of being turned out from her matrimonial house, the mental cruelty continues and therefore jurisdiction can be in the district of Hazaribagh is no ground to conclude that the learned court at Hazaribagh had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In the case of Dhananjay Singh & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another, reported in 2010 3 JLJR 378, the entire criminal proceedings were quashed since the transaction relating to alleged cruelty was confined to the period when the complainant was living in her matrimonial house at Patna and no part of the alleged conduct was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad Court. In this context, reference may also be made to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) East Cr C 231 (SC), wherein it was held as follows:-
"8. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."
Thus in view of the fact that the entire allegations with respect to commission of the alleged offence has been conducted in the district of Deoghar and no part of the said offence having been alleged to have taken place in the district of Hazaribagh and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint case instituted by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 cannot be allowed to continue at Hazaribagh as the learned court at Hazaribagh lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The judgment in the -5- case of Sushila Agarwal and another Vs State of Jharkhand & another, reported in 2010 4 JLJR 38 is also with respect to territorial jurisdiction and the ratio of the said judgment is similar to the one, which has been discussed above and as such no detailed discussion with reference to the same is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the case of Arjun Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2006 1 JCR 183 (Jhr), in which it was held that where complaint case has been filed as a counter blast to matrimonial case filed by the petitioners seeking divorce, it was actuated with mala fide intention and order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed. By citing the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that on issuance of notice in the suit filed by the petitioner no. 1 for dissolution of marriage, the complaint case was instituted. At this stage, it cannot be deciphered as to whether the complaint case was a counter blast to the matrimonial suit and the said issue is best left open at this stage. So far as the allegations with respect to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same has been mentioned at paragraph 20 of the complaint petition of an incident which occurred on 5.11.2011 relating to an accident with another vehicle. The said allegations on the face of it seem to be highly absurd and improbable inasmuch as if the petitioner no. 1 had the intention as highlighted by the complainant-opposite party no. 2, he was himself at a greater risk to suffer serious injuries, if he had dashed deliberately with his motorcycle with another vehicle. Even otherwise, the said incident had also taken place in the year 2011 whereas the complaint case has been instituted in 2013 and there being no plausible explanation with respect to the lodgment of the case after such a delay, the same appears to be coloured with ill-motive and ill-intention. In such circumstances also, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.563 of 2013, including the order dated 18.05.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/