Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh And Ors. vs Amrit Kaur on 10 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ3560
ORDER S. Kumaran, J.
1. The first petitioner herein is. the husband while the second petitioner is the father in law, the third petitioner is the mother-in-law and the fourth petitioner is the sister-in law, respectively, of the respondent - Amrit Kaur. The respondent herein filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Batala (District Gurdaspur) against the petitioners herein under section 498A/34, Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 5-7-1987. The allegations in the complaint are as follows: That immediately after the marriage petitioner No. 1 and the other petitioners making demands of cash and other household goods started harassing the respondent and said that they were in need of Rs. 20,0007- that she informed the same to her father who complied with the illegal demand of the petitioners so that she could live in her marital home, that after the passage of sometime the petitioners again demanded from the respondent Rs. 10.000/- and asked her to bring the same from her father so that they can purchase land; that her father once again met their illegal demand; that about eight months back the petitioners again made an illegal demand for Rs. 10, 000/- sent the respondent to her parents' house; that she informed her father about the demand of the petitioners but, he refused to meet this demand; that when she informed this to the petitioners accused they turned her out of their home, and that she had come to her parents' house that on 2-2-1994 when the father of the respondent and certain other persons along with the respondent went to village Wadala Kalan and made a request to the petitioners that the respondent should be allowed to remain in the marital home the petitioners refused and, therefore, the respondent returned to her village. The respondent herein and two other witnesses were examined on the side of the respondent before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and he came to the conclusion that the respondent herein had succeeded in prima facie proving his case against the petitioners and ordered them to be summoned under section 498A. Indian Penal Code. The order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate is Annexure P-2. It is for quashing the complaint by the respondent, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the proceedings arising out of the same that the petitioners have come forward with this petition.
2. The petitioners have urged two grounds in support of their case. The first is that the allegations made in the complaint made by the respondent are so vague that no offence under section 498A could be made out. The second is that the alleged demand and the harassment are stated to have been made in the village Wadalakalan within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baba Bakala (District Amritsar) and so the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Batala (District Gurdaspur) has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the ordinary place of enquiry and trial shall be where the offence was committed and, therefore, the Court at Batala has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case, since no part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the complaint is not vague but mentions that all the petitioners accused had harassed the respondent, made illegal demands, and turned her out of her marital home and, therefore, a prime facie case under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioners. He also contends that the harassment and cruelty can be at more than one place and that the cause of action also contends that the consequences of the cruelty ensue. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contends that when the petitioners made an illegal demand on the respondent and turned her out of the marital home she had to go to her parental home and inform her parents of the illegal demands made by the petitioners and therefore so along as the demand is not met, she has to remain in the parental home and, therefore, the harassment also continues and so, the Court at Batala of District Gurdaspur also has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the parties advanced arguments at length and I have considered them.
5. I will first consider the question whether the allegations in the complaint are vague and without details and, therefore, the ingredients of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. As. pointed out already, the allegations in the complaint are that immediately after the marriage petitioner No. 1 and the other petitioners herein started making the demands for cash and other household articles and harassed the respondent and said that they were in need of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondent has alleged that she informed the same to her father who complied with the demand of the petitioners herein. The respondent has also alleged that after passage of some time the petitioners again demanded Rs. 10,000/ - and that was also met by her father. She has further alleged that eight months prior to the complaint, the petitioners again made an illegal demand of Rs. 10,0007- and sent her to her parents' house, but her father refused to meet this demand and, when she informed that to the petitioners herein, all the petitioners sent her out from their home. She has also alleged that on 2-2-1994 her father and certain others along with her (the respondent) went to village Wadalakalan and requested the petitioners herein to allow the respondent to remain in the marital home that the petitioners refused to do so, and then she returned to her village. So, we find that the respondent has generally stated that the petitioners made the demands. According to her, the first demand was made immediately after her marriage the second demand was after the passage of sometime and the third demand was made about eight months prior to the complaint filed by her. She has not given specific dates and the months when the alleged first two demands were made. Even with regard to the alleged third demand, She has only stated that it was about eight months prior to her complaint. Therefore in these circumstances I feel that the complaint contains only vague allegations without details, and without specific allegations with reference to dates. So, on this ground the complaint has to fail.
6. The other objection taken by the petitioners is that all the demands and harassment are stated to have been made by the petitioners at village Wadalakalan with the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala (District Amritsar) and, therefore, the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Batala (District Gurdaspur) has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is seen from the allegations in the complaint that according to her the petitioners started making demands and harassing her (the respondent) at the house of the petitioners. Of course the respondent has alleged that she was turned out from the house of the petitioners and that the request by her father and others to allow her to remain in her marital home was also not accepted by the petitioners herein. But, all these incidents if true, happened only at village Wadala Kalan, which lies within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Baba Bakala and not within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Batala. But, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent, herein was turned out of her marital house by the petitioners since she did not meet and comply with their demands that the respondent had necessarily to go to her parental home and inform her parents of the demand that the demand could not be met by her father and she had to remain at the parental home; that so long as the demand was not met, the harassment also continues and, therefore, the Court at Batala (District Gurdaspur) also has jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of this Court in Vipiri Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1995 (1) ALJ 579) for the proposition that the harassment can be at more than one places and that the cause of action arises in more than one place where the consequences of cruelty ensue. But, on a careful perusal of this decision, I find that apart from the alleged harassment, the complainant therein had also alleged that she was taken from her marital home and was left at Rohtak - In such circumstances, it was held that the act of leaving her at Rohtak is one of harassment. Therefore, it was held that the Court at Rohtak will have jurisdiction to hear the case. But, in the present case the alleged harassment, if true, was meted out to the respondent only at villge Wadalakalan falling within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of Baba Bakala District Amritsar. According to the respondent, she was turned out from the house at that place only. It has not been alleged by the respondent that she was taken by the petitioners from village Wadalakalan and left at her parents home lying within the jurisdiction of Batala (District Gurdaspur). Therefore, this decision relied upon by the respondent will not be of any help to her, since this decision was rendered on different footing, of course in that decision relied upon by the respondent, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Rattan Sharma v. State of U.P., 1988 Cri. L.J. 1581) has been referred to. That was a case when the wife fell ill at Ghaziabad, on account of the mental shock suffered as a consequence of maltreatment by the husband and others. It was held that the consequences of the maltreatment and cruelty ensureed at Ghaziabad. The learned judge who decided that case relied upon section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that where an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of 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 ensued, and held that though maltreatment was meted outside Ghaziabad, it became cruelty on account of the consequence that the wife fell ill at Ghaziabad, on account of mental shock. But, in the present case, it is not stated that the respondent even fell ill at her parental home on account of the cruelty allegedly meted out by thepetitioners herein. But, the learned judge who decided this case (Vijay Rattan Sharma's case 1988 Cri LJ 1581 (Supra) had also held that when the woman is at Ghaziabad and is not being called, this harassment can also be stated to have taken place at Ghaziabad. With very great respect to the learned judge, who decided this case, I am unable to agree with the views expressed by the learned judge. The explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code giving meaning of the term cruelty is as follows :--
" (a)' Cruelty' means any wilful 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) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
7. So, the cruelty must be one which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (of course, either mental or physical) of the woman. The mere statement that the woman had fallen ill may not constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code unless the illness, either mental or physical, is of such nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Similarly the harassment must also be such as should have been actually meted out by the accused. Simply because the husband and others did not call the wife to the matrimonial home, it cannot amount to harassment. Driving her out from the matrimonial home to perental home will be harassment, but not calling her back to the marital home cannot amount to harassment, although the husband at the worst can be stated to be guilty of desertion if he makes the stay of the wife in the marital home unsafe and, therefore, makes her to leave matrimonial home. But, this cannot be stretched further and stated that the husband is guilty of harassment by not calling her to the marital home and thereby clothe the magistrate's court, within whose local jurisdiction the house of her parents is situate, with jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by her under Section 498A, IPC. In these circumstances, I find that no part of the alleged cruelty or harassment arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Batala and, therefore, the court at Batala has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint against the petitioners herein under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The result is that the complaint, the summoning order and the proceedings emanating thereform will have to be quashed.
In the result, this petition is allowed, quashing the complaint by the respondent against the petitioners and the summoning order passed by the concerned Magistrate, and the further proceedings a mandating therefrom.