Jharkhand High Court
Shri Hardeep Singh Bedi & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 30 June, 2010
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
Cr. M.P. No. 66 of 2006
...
1. Shri Hardeep Singh Bedi
2. Smt. Radha Rani @ Radha Rani Bedi ...Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & another ... Opposite Parties
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. T.R.Bajaj, Sr. Advocate
For the State : - A.P.P.
...
7/30.06.2010It appears from the office report that though notices were validly served upon the Opposite Party No. 2 and she had earlier appeared through lawyer by filing Vakalatnama and had also filed a rejoinder to the petitioners' present application, but on call counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has not appeared though counsel for the State is present.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.
3. The petitioners in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 03.08.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro and the criminal proceeding presently pending against the petitioners following the order of cognizance vide C.P. Case No. 184 of 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order of cognizance and the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners primarily on the ground that the impugned order is bad in view of the fact that the learned court below has passed the same without application of judicial mind and without considering the fact that even on the basis of the allegations and the entire facts as contained in the complaint petition of the Opposite Party No. 2, the court concerned at Bokaro has no jurisdiction either to entertain the complaint or to try the accused persons of the case.
Obtaining support from the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan & Others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2007(1) SCC 262 and the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police 2004(8) SCC 100, learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged and presented by the complainant, no part of the alleged transaction relating to the alleged offensive conduct, took place within the jurisdiction of the court at Bokaro. Rather, even from the averments contained in the complaint petition, the entire transactions had taken place at the matrimonial house of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 at Nagpur.
To elaborate his argument, learned counsel would read out the contents of the complaint petition as filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and also the impugned order of the court below.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would argue that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of cognizance passed by the court below as because there is specific allegation that the petitioners/accused persons have subjected the complainant to cruelty and ill-treatment and such cruelty did continue even on the date when the complaint was filed and the impugned order of cognizance was passed. Referring to a judgement passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Biswajit @ Prabin Pandey & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2006(3) JCR 149 (Jhr), learned counsel submits that as has been observed in the aforementioned judgement, the act of cruelty continues even when the victim lady was made to suffer torture and compelled by her husband and in-laws to live at her paternal house.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record and have also perused the impugned order of the court below.
7. From the perusal of the allegations as contained in the complaint petition filed by the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2, it transpires that admittedly her marriage with the Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized at Nagpur on 24th July, 1997 and thereafter the marriage was consummated at her matrimonial house at Nagpur where she shared conjugal life with her husband in the company of her mother-in- law, the petitioner No. 2. It appears that the conjugal relations between the spouses became strained within a few months of the marriage even though the lady had conceived during such period and later delivered a baby boy. The alleged ill-treatment continued in course of which the lady was allegedly subjected to abuses and even frequent assaults coupled by an illegal demand for dowry. When the relations between the parties became acutely strained, the brother of the complainant was called and the complainant was made to leave her matrimonial house along with her brother way back in August, 2003. After being expelled from her matrimonial house, she was taken by her brother to Delhi where she obtained some medical treatment and thereafter in the case, which she had filed before the Womens' Cell of the Crimes Department at Delhi, a compromise was effected between her and her husband pursuant to which she resumed her conjugal life at her matrimonial house but her sojourn at matrimonial house did not continue for long since her husband did not change his hostile behaviour towards her. These circumstances had compelled her to quit her husband's house in the month of November, 2004 and thereafter she came to her mother's house at Chas, Bokaro. Since then she has been residing at her mother's house at Bokaro. In the penultimate paragraph of the complaint petition, an allegation has been made that "the accused husband along with his mother and sister, created scenes a number of times by threatening and abusing the brother of the complainant at Delhi and also at Chas with dire consequences and to kidnap the kids of the brother of the complainant."
8. From a bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint and the entire averments contained in the complaint petition, it is apparent that the entire transactions relating to the alleged cruelty, had occurred at Nagpur and perhaps subsequently at Delhi. No part of any such alleged transaction took place at Chas/ Bokaro. Even though in the above quoted paragraph of the complaint petition, the allegation would suggest that some threats were issued by the accused persons but the same are vague and ambiguous and not specific.
9. Considering the above facts, the court at Chas in the district of Bokaro has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition or to try the accused persons for the alleged offences. Such prohibition is contained in the provisions under Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the parameters of which have been elaborately discussed and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) and later in the case of Manish Ratan (Supra).
10. In the present case, the allegations and the facts stated by the complainant in her complaint petitioner, there is nothing to show that any of the acts constituting the alleged offences were committed at all at Chas or that such acts constitute a continuing offence. Rather, the admitted facts of the case is that the complainant had decided to quit her matrimonial house and acting upon her decision, she had left her matrimonial house and began to live with her mother and brother at Chas ever since November, 2004.
11. The facts of the case of Biswajit @ Prabin Pandey (Supra) are in a different context than the facts of the present case and as such, the said judgement would not apply to the present case. On the other hand, the facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts in the case of Manish Ratan (Supra) as also in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra).
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made, I am satisfied with the grounds advanced by the petitioners. This criminal miscellaneous petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners following the order of cognizance, pending against them in the court of the S.D.J.M., Chas at Bokaro vide C.P. Case No. 184 of 2005, is hereby quashed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) Birendra/