Orissa High Court
- vs - on 11 March, 2010
Author: Indrajit Mahanty
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.625 OF 2002 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. B. Hari Prasad 85 Others .... .. P€titi01'1€1'S -Versus- B. Usha .... .. Opp. Party For Petitioners : M /s. Ashok Jena & R.Mohanty For Opp. Party : None P R E S E N T : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY. Date of hearing 28.01.2010 Date of Judgment : j] -03 -:20] 0 I. Mahanty, J.
This application has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the proceeding in ICC Case No.15 of 2001 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur for the alleged offence under sections 498-A, 406/34 I.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that the learned S.D.J.M. has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter since the occurrence on the basis of whiclmcognizance was taken on 15.4.2002 has admittedly taken place at the compl_ainant's matrimonial house at Ichhapuram in the State of Andhrapradesh. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith 81.: Others Vrs. Inspector of Police, Chennai 8; Another, (2004) 29 OCR (SC) 241.
2. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.7.2002 that the accused persons had filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M. to quash the order of cognizance on the ground that the S.D.J.M. had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence which allegedly occurred at Ichhapuram in the State of Andhrapradesh.
3. From the records it appears that the compla1'nant~ B.Usha had married the accused-petitioner No.1- B. Hari Prasad at Berhampur on 13.3.1996. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the dowry articles had been given to the accused--petitioners at Chatrapur and when she went to her matrimonial house, she was tortured for demand of more dowry for which reason she returned to her parents house at Chatrapur where she gave birth to a male child on 22.12.1996. After birth of that child, the petitioners did not care to visit and see their new born or attend any function like 'Namakarana' or 'Arnaprasa', and on the other hand, sent a message to bring Rs.10,000/-- to liquidate certain hand loans. It is further alleged that the complainant one again went to her matrimonial house at Ichhapuram and stayed there for about one and half months. She was not allowed to remain peacefully for which she returned to her parents house in the month of April, 1998 and thereafter, the present complaint petition was filed before the learned S.D.J.M. on 24.4.2001 on the ground that although notice was issued by the complainant's counsel to return the dowry articles, the same were not returned and thereby misappropriated.
4. In the light of the aforesaid allegations, the learned S.D.J.M. passed an order on 15.4.2002 taking cognizance of the offences under sections 498-A,406/ 34 IPC and further by an order dated 25.7.2002 rejected the petition filed by the accused-petitioner for quashing the order of cognizance on a finding that a part of the cause of action i.e. giving of dowry occurred at Chhatrapur in the State of Orissa.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a plain reading of the complaint petition as well as the statement recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., it would be clear that the allegations related to both "physical and mental torture" made on the complainant at the time when she was at her matrimonial house at Ichhapuram in the State of Andra Pradesh.
6. On perusal of the pleadings made in this petition as Well as the complaint petition, it is clear therefrom that the allegations made by the complainant relate to the mental and physical torture at Ichhapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh which allegedly compelled the complainant to return and reside at her parent's house at Chatrapur in the State of Orissa. V
7. The facts of the present case are very similar to the facts of the case dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra). In the said case, While the averments made in the complaint petition reveal that the alleged occurrence took place at Nagercoil in the State of Andra Pradesh, the complaint petition was filed at Chennai in the State of Tamilnadu under sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the provisions of Section 177 to 186 Cr.P.C. came to conclude that in the said case, the complainant herself left the house of her husband on 15.4.1997 on account of the alleged dowry demand by her in--laWs. Therefore, the said occurrence could not be said to be constituting an offence under section 178(c) Cr.P.C. and cannot be held to be a continuous offence as contended before the l-Ion'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined the term ' cause of action' as used in criminal cases as stated in section 177 of the Code with reference to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed and therefore, came to a conclusion that in the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant, no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and held that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and accordingly, quashed the proceeding and directed return of the complaint to the complainant who, if she so chooses, may file the same before the appropriate court.
8. In the present case at hand, the averments in the complaint petition reveal as follows :
" ...... .. as per the custom she had to come to her mother's place at Chatrapur for the delivery of the first issue. She gave birth to a male issue 'Rupesh' on dated 22.12.1996.
During her stay of seven months also the accused No.2,3 and 4 tortured her pohysically and mentally by using unpleasant words and were demanding all through to bring more money from her parent's house. ..... ..
After the demanded money was paid, the complainant was taken along with the child to her in--laws place at Ichhapuram by accused Nos.1 and 3 in the month of April, 1998. Even after visiting to her in-laws house for the 2nd time she was not allowed to live peacefully by accused Nos. 3,4 and
5. She had to return back within one and half month during which period she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the family members of the accused."
9. On a plain reading of the aforesaid averments made in the complaint petition, I am of the view that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur and placing reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra), the CRLMC is allowed and the proceeding in ICC Case No.15 of 2001, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur is directed to be quashed. The learned S.D.J.M. is directed to return the complaint to the complainant~Opp. Party who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court and may be dealt with in accordance with law.
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK March 11% , 2010/KCP