Kerala High Court
K.C. Mathew And Anr. vs Reena Paul on 11 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: II(1998)DMC162
JUDGMENT P. Shanmugam, J.
1. This is a petition to quash a complaint filed by a wife alleging offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 34, IPC.
2. A brief summary of the complaint of the respondent is as follows : The marriage between the respondent and the son of the petitioners was solemnised on 9.1.1995 at St. Peters Church, Manganam, Kottayam Dist. They lived as husband and wife briefly before the respondent's husband left to U.S.A. on 22.1.1995. While the respondent wife was living with the petitioners who are parents of the husband, during the period from24.4.1995 to 28.10.1995, they had repeatedly made a demand to arrange an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs by converting the remaining tangible assets of the complainant's parents. Unable to bear the bitter cruelty experienced due to the coercion, she left Surat on 28.10.1995. The husband telephoned the complainant during the first week of November, 1995 on two occasions and insisted payment of Rs. 12 lakhs forthwith and threatening with dire consequences on her failure. The 2nd petitioner wrote to the complainant's mother in deploring terms by way of character assassination of the wife. When the husband came to India on 29.2.1996, he stayed upto 4.3.1996, but behaved in a most inhuman manner harassing the complainant by demanding the amount. The husband physically assaulted the complainant and refused to perform the matrimonial obligations unless his demand is complied with. The husband as well as the petitioners did not provide her any proper maintenance and refused to avail of the amount given to the complainant's parents forcing her to take employment. To crown all the above harassment, the husband instituted proceedings for divorce before a Circuit Court, County of Oakland, State of Michigen to secure a divorce setting up false contentions and suppression of the truth and facts knowing fully well that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction, and obtained dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved by cruelty at the instance of the accused, the above complaint was preferred before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery.
3. Two main grounds were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (1) The complaint taken in its entirety does not make out an offence under Section 498(A). (2) The Magistrate Court at Thamarassery has no territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence.
4. The ingredients of Section 498(A) which are relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows:
(1) The husband must subject the woman to cruelty.
(2) Cruelty which means a harassment with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property. (3) Harassment is on account of failure by the woman to meet the demand.
5. The fact that the respondent is a wife is not in dispute. The case of the respondent is that she had been harassed with a view to compel her to pay a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. She has been harassed on account of failure to meet such demand which would amount to cruelty. In order to satisfy whether the allegations are made satisfying the requirements of Section 498(A), I had been taken through the complaint. The clear allegations in this case are that on 24.4.1995 and 28.10.1995, the petitioners had repeatedly demanded to arrange an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs by converting the remaining tangible assets. It is further specifically pleaded that the husband contacted the respondent over phone during the first week of November, 1995 on two occasions and in very clear terms demanded payment of Rs. 12 lakhs forthwith. He had also threatened with the warning of dire consequences for the failure to pay the money. The husband also passed on the warning to the complainant's mother and the complainant's mother was exhausted in mental shock on receiving above threat in spite of the fact that they have already paid a sizable amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The husband when he came back from U.S.A. to India, during 29.2.1996 to 4.3.1996 has physically assaulted the complainant and refused to perform the matrimonial obligations unless his demand is complied with. The complainant was not provided with proper maintenance and not permitted to avail any amount given by the complainant's parents. Above all, the husband had obtained a fake divorce decree in U.S.A. on suppression of material facts. These allegations are clear enough to satisfy the requirement of offence under Section 498(A), IPC.
6. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, 1996 SCC (Cri.) 150=I (1996) CCR 97 (SC), has held that at the stage of quashing a First Information Report or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. If on the basis of the complaint a prima facie case has been explained, the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
7. The next question that arise for consideration is whether the Magistrate Court at Thamarassery has jurisdiction ? Chapter XIII deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in trials. Section 177, Cr. P.C. states that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed Section 178 deals with the place of inquiry or trial. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is 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 local areas than one, or 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. Section 179 also enables the Court to try the case within whose local jurisdiction the consequence of offence has ensued. In this case, the husband-1st accused contacted the complainant over phone at Koodathai village in Kozhikode district on two occasions and threatened with dire consequences and demanded payment. The complainant's mother also was threatened. Consequently, complainant's mother was totally exhausted due to mental shock on receiving threat of the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner had even wrote to the complainant's mother by way of character assassination. The husband had denied normal sexual contact, but physically assaulted for the failure to meet the demand. In paragraph 8 of the complaint, it is specifically stated that the accused have committed the offence at Surat and also at Koodathayi amsom within the jurisdiction of Kodanchery Police Station where the complainant lived with the complainant's mother and hence conferring jurisdiction to the Magistrate Court, Thamarassery. Thus it is categorically stated that some of the several acts are done within the jurisdiction of Magistrate Court at Thamarassery. The consequence also ensued within the jurisdiction of the said Court. Therefore, on the basis of the pleadings, there cannot be any doubt that the Magistrate Court, Thamarassery will have jurisdiction of the trial. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz. Tarsem Singh v. Amrit Kaur, 1995 Crl. LJ 3560, and Rajaram Venkatesh v. State of A.P., 1993 Cri. L.J, 707, are distinguishable to facts. There are no pleadings as could be seen from the complaint in question in the other two cases to hold that the respective Courts had no jurisdiction.
8. It is seen that Section 498(A), IPC is one of the provisions intended to safeguard the women and to prevent cruelty by their husband or relatives. The provision has to be interpreted to achieve the object to protect the helpless women who are subjected to cruelty at the hands of the dominating husband and his relatives. In the case on hand, the wife is harassed or threatened, assaulted and subjected to mental cruelty and her parents also were subjected to the same treatment at her old age. They are also deprived of their prospects of a family life.
9. As it is seen in this case, the petitioners are having comfortable business and family at Surat and the complainant was forced to go back her parental home for the alleged cruelty. Above all, the husband obtained a fake divorce decree in U.S.A. all because of the wife's inability to meet the demand of money. Therefore, in my view, the technical plea of the petitioners, both on factual assessment as well as on the legal aspect, does not deserve to be accepted.
In the above circumstances, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the Crl. M.C. is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.