Patna High Court - Orders
Nandu Mahto & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 13 December, 2011
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15331 of 2008
1. Dinesh Mahto, son of Nandu Mahto.
2. Mahesh Mahto, son of Nandu Mahto.
3. Rita Devi, wife of Dinesh Mahto.
All residents of Mohalla-Sikwas Sthan (near Petrol
Pump) Village-Barhiya, Ward No.9, P.S. Barhiya,
District-Lakhisarai.
......................................................Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Mithun Devi @ Mithu Devi, wife of Ganesh Mahto,
daughter of Dinbandhu Mahto, Mohalla-Sikwas
Sthan (Near Petrol Pump),Village-Barhiya, Ward
No.9. P.S. Barhiya, District-Lakhisarai, at present
resident at Mohalla-Mungeriganj, P.S. Begusarai
(Town), District-Begusarai.
.............................................Opposite Parties.
----------------------------------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.
-----------------------------------
O R D E R
5. 13.12.2011. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.206(C) of 2006, summoning the accused-petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 2 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. While this application was filed on behalf of the four accused-petitioners, namely, Nandu Mahto, Dinesh Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Rita Devi, but due to the death of the accused-petitioner, Nandu Mahto, this application in respect to him has been rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2010 as having become infructuous. As such, this application survives only on behalf of the remaining three accused-petitioners.
3. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.206(C) of 2006 against Nandu Mahto {(father-in-law) since dead}, Dinesh Mahto (brother-in-law), Rita Devi (sister-in-law) and Mahesh Mahto (brother-in-law), with allegation that her marriage was performed with Ganesh Mahto, son of Nandu Mahto (since dead) on 12th of May, 2002 according to Hindu customs. At the time of her marriage, her father had gifted clothes and utensils worth Rs.5000/-, ornaments worth Rs.15000/- and Rs.51000/- in cash. After the marriage, she went to her sasural and stayed there for about six days. Later on, after Durga Puja, she went to her sasural in 3 second marriage. As her husband used to do the job of labourer, therefore, in that connection he generally used to live at Bombay. After reaching her sasural after second marriage, her Sasur, Bhaisur, Gotni and Dewar, used to put pressure on her to bring in cash Rs.25000/- and a colour television from her Maika, but her father was unable to fulfill their demand. Due to non fulfillment of demand, all the accused started to torture and harass to the opposite party no.2 in various modes including by not providing proper food and clothes by saying that if she will not bring the aforesaid articles from her Maika, she will be killed. Tasar Devi, the mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2, tried to intervene, but they were adamant on their demand and, ultimately, she was removed from her matrimonial house, after snatching her personal belongings by the accused persons and she reached her Maika and narrated all the incidents to her parents.
4. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, on inquiry, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, summoned the accused-petitioners through the impugned order dated 26.2.2007 finding prima facie case under 4 Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The sole argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that from the complaint petition, it is apparent that the occurrence as alleged had taken place in sasural of the opposite party no.2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, in district-Lakhisarai and, as such, the court of Begusarai had no jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioners with respect to the alleged occurrence said to have taken place in the district of Lakhisarai. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a decision of a Bench of this Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and another {2009(4) PLJR 189}.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is continuing in nature and, therefore, the court of Begusarai, had jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioners as the opposite party no.2 used to reside at her Maika situated in the district of Begusarai after the alleged occurrence.
7. As in the present case, the issue is confined only to territorial jurisdiction about the criminal 5 proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2, hence, there is no need to go into other factual aspects. Since the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses, as examined in course of inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the case under Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused- petitioners, it is desirable to refer to the provision of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code relating to cruelty at the hands of the husband or relatives of the husband of a women and also Sections 177-179 of Chapter-XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials.
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is read as under:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-6
(a) 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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Sections 177-179 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure are read as under:
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial.-(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason 7 of anything which has been done and of a 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 has ensued."
8. It is clear from the above provisions of Sections 177-179 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure that normally the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local areas or the offence consist of several acts done in different local areas, as per Section 178 the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence had ensued.
9. In the present case, the opposite party no.2 has 8 filed the complaint petition in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, narrating about her marriage with Ganesh Mahto in the year 2002 and stated that on reaching her sasural situated in the district of Lakhisarai after second marriage, her brothers-in-law, father-in-law and gotni used to put pressure on her to bring cash Rs.25000/- and a colour television from her Maika and on showing inability to fulfill the demand by her father, she was tortured in spite of intervention of her mother-in-law and lastly, she was driven out from her matrimonial house by the accused-petitioners after snatching all her personal belongings. Consequently, she reached her Maika situated in the district of Begusari and narrated all the incidents to her parents.
10. On going through the provision of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code referred to above, it is clear that harassment and cruelty at the hands of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine. In explanation appended to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, not only the physical but the mental cruelty has also been 9 included as an act of the offence.
11. In the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh (Supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a Bench of this Court relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. {(2004) 8 SCC 100} and in the case of Md. Kalim & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. {2009(1) PLJR 111} has held that the cause of action has arisen in the district of Samastipur which is evident from a broad reading of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and not in the district of Khagaria, where F.I.R. had been lodged and, accordingly, quashed the cognizance order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria.
12. In the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. {2011(2) PLJR 191 (SC)} similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case, Sunita Kumari Kashyap, was the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, who had lodged the F.I.R. bearing No.66 of 2007 at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya, under Sections 498-A and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry 10 Prohibition Act in which on submission of the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, had taken the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections and had transferred the record to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Gaya, where an objection was raised by the husband and in-laws, who were accused in that case, about the territorial jurisdiction of the court at district-Gaya, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Nos.42478 of 2009 and 45153 of 2009 were filed by the in-laws and husband respectively of Sunita Kumari Kashyap before this Court, which were allowed by different Benches of this Court vide order dated 19.3.2010 and 29.4.2010 respectively, holding the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The aforesaid orders, i.e., the order dated 19.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.42478 of 2009 and the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.45153 of 2009, were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders, in its decision, in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (Supra), held in paragraphs-10 and 11, as under:
"10. Mr. Sanyal also relied on a decision of this 11 Court in Bhura Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein following the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others (supra), this Court held that "cause of action" having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. For the same reasons, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while there is no dispute as to the proposition in view of the fact that in the case on hand, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence at the continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. In view of the above reason, both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case and we are unable to accept the stand taken by Mr. Sanyal.
11. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one 12 and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted."
13. From the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, it is no doubt that the harassment and cruelty as alleged was caused to the opposite party no.2 at the hands of the accused-petitioners at her sasural situated in the district of Lakhisarai and she was driven out from there by them by snatching her personal belongings and she, ultimately, reached at her Maika in the district of Begusarai. As such, while the cause arose at Lakhisarai, but the effect of the cause was ensued and was continuing in the district of Begusarai, due to the mental cruelty suffered continuously by the opposite party no.2 in view of the provisions of Sections 178 (c) and 179 of Chapter-XIII of the Code of Criminal 13 Procedure. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.206(C) of 2006, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court.
14. In the result, this application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./A.F.R.