Jharkhand High Court
Biswajit @ Prabin Pandey And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 18 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(3)JCR149(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Page 1280
1. Heard the parties.
2. In this case filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case No. 566 of 2005 including the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Dhanbad whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed the aforementioned complaint case against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The Complainant's case is that she was married with the petitioner No. 1 at Rajrappa on 9.7.1999 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, complainant's father paid cash of Rs. 41,000/-, golden ornaments, silver ornaments, household articles and clothes. It is alleged that after marriage the complainant went to her matrimonial home at village Ghonga, P.S. and district Purulia and started living peaceful conjugal life. Just after two days, the entire golden and silver ornaments were taken away from the complainant by petitioner No. 5 on the ground that the area is dominated by thieves. After 15 days of the marriage, father of the complainant was called by the accused persons and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- saying that petitioner No. 1 is likely to be employed in Forest Department at West Bengal. When father of the complainant expressed his inability to pay this amount then the complainant was mentally and physically tortured by all accused persons in a very cruel manner. The complainant remained at her sasural upto July 2001 but the during this period she used to come to her parent's house. It was further alleged by the complainant that she was not being provided necessary food and daily amenities and on hearing the cruel behaviour of the petitioners, complainant's father several times visited her matrimonial home at Purulia for settling the disputes. It is further alleged that the complainant was finally driven out from her matrimonial home on 5.12.2004 for non-fulfillment of illegal demand and she has taken permanent shelter in her parent's house at Dhanbad. Lastly, it is alleged that inspite of all efforts taken by the father of the complainant to settle the dispute with the petitioners but all went in vain.
4. On the basis of the allegation made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and after going through the allegation took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Act.
5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court at Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to take cognizance of the offence. It is contended that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad Court and as such the order of cognizance is bad in law. In this regard, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. (2005) 1 JCR-15(SC).
6. First of all, I would like to discuss the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith case (supra). In that case, an application was filed under Section 482 Page 1281 Cr.P.C. alleging that the concerned Magistrate has no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In that case, all the allegations regarding demand of dowry with committing cruelty and torture had taken place at Nagercoil and the complainant ultimately came to Chennai and was staying there. All the allegations took place, according to the complainant, at Nagercoil. In that case the Supreme Court held that Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the compliant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In the instant case, as it transpires from the compliant petition, the marriage took place at Rajrappa. At the time of marriage, father of the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 41,000/- in cash besides gold and silver ornaments, household articles, and cloths. Father of the petitioner demanded further dowry and when the complainant's father expressed his inability to fulfil the demand, the complainant was mentally and physically tortured by all accused persons in a very cruel manner and during that period she used to come to her parent's house. Further allegation is that when the complainant was not blessed with any child, she was insisted to fulfil the demand otherwise she will not be allowed to stay at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home for non-fulfillment of the illegal demand as a result of which the complainant was forced to stay at her parent's house at Dhanbad where complaint case has been filed. It is also alleged that because of cruelty the complainant is passing her days at her father's house with serious mental agony and pain.
8. The object of 498-A as inserted by Act 46 of 1983 is to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Similarly, the increase in cases of harassment and deaths of young married women as a result of unlawful demands of dowry by their husbands or parents-in-laws resulted in enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 498-A has been inserted with a view to punishing the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife in order to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
9. From the allegations, made in the compliant petition, it is evident that because of the cruelty the complainant forced to come to her parent's house and father-in-law of the complainant alleged to have demanded dowry from her father which finally resulted in ousting of the complainant from the matrimonial home and forcing her to stay at her father's house.
10. Considering the allegations made in the compliant, I am of the view that the Court at Dhanbad has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to try the case. Besides the above, when the wife, because of cruelty, was forced to take shelter in her parent's house and the consequence of cruelty ensured at that place then the Court of that place has territorial jurisdiction to try the wife's complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the criminal prosecution instituted in the jurisdiction of Dhanbad Court. As a result, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.