Jharkhand High Court
Ravindra Kumar Agarwal And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 8 March, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 (3) AJR 791, (2016) 161 ALLINDCAS 876 (JHA) (2016) 2 JLJR 424, (2016) 2 JLJR 424
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2463 of 2015
---
1.Ravindra Kumar Agarwal son of Raj Kishore Agarwal
resident of Eldico Utopia, Novel, Tower-3, Flat No. 201,
Sector - 93A, Express Way, Noida, PS Phase II Police
Station, District Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP)
2.Mrs. Santosh Agarwal wife of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal
resident of Eldico Utopia, Novel, Tower-3, Flat No. 201,
Sector - 93A, Express Way, Noida, PS Phase II Police
Station, District Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP)
3.Vishesh Agarwal son of Mahendra Agarwal, resident
of 602, Shrushti, Old Prabhadevi Road, PO Prabhadevi,
PS Dadar (West), Dist. Greater Bombay presently
staying at 505, Sudarshan Tower, Saheednagar, PO & PS
Saheednagar, Dist. Khorda, Bhubaneshwar
4.Richa Dalmia wife of Tushar Dalmia, resident of 20,
Ballyganj Circular Road, Suket Apartment, 5th floor,
PO & PS Ballyganj, Kolkata (West Bengal) ... ...
Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand ]
2.Sajal Agarwal @ Tulsyan daughter of Rajiv Tulsyan
wife of Late Mayank Agarwal, resident of Bunglow No. 4,
Chanchani Colony, Dhaiya, PO ISM and PS Dhanbad (Town)
District Dhanbad ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : M/s. B. M. Tripathy, Senior Advocate,
M. S. Mittal, Senior Advocate &
Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : M/s. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate,
Satish Kumar & Chanda Kumar, Advocate
---
5/08.03.2016In this application, the prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C. P. Case No. 1636 of 2015 including the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A & 34 of the I.P.C.
2. The prosecution story arising out of the complaint petition instituted by the opposite party no. 2 is to the effect that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solmenised with Mayank Agarwal (since deceased) on 24.11.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at Agra. It is -2- alleged that in spite of spending a huge amount in the marriage, the accused persons were not satisfied and the complainant was physically abused and assaulted by the accused persons. On account of the cruelty and torture meted out to the complainant, she had left her matrimonial home on 10.09.2013 and went to reside at her parents' place whereafter a few days on the assurance of petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 that the complainant would not be subjected to torture for demand of dowry, the complainant went back to her matrimonial house. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant died on 21.03.2015, after which the complainant was blamed for his death and all her belongings were taken away by the accused persons. Ultimately, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house and she went to reside at her parents' place and the act of the accused persons constrained her to file a complaint petition which was registered as C. P. Case No. 1636 of 2015.
3. Upon conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad on 01.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A/34 of the I.P.C.
4. Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
5. Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire episode with respect to alleged torture and demand of dowry had taken place at Greater Noida and therefore, the Court at Dhanbad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to proceed further with the complaint case. It has been submitted that in terms of Section 201 of the Cr.P.C., the proper course for the Magistrate was to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation to the proper court, but instead of adhering to the provisions of Section 201 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate had accepted the complaint petition and had also conducted an inquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, the taking of cognizance itself is hit by the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the entire criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel further adds that neither in the -3- complaint petition nor in the statement recorded under solemn affirmation, the complainant had indicated about any incident having taken place in the district of Dhanbad, but the learned Magistrate in order to make the complaint come within the periphery of the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Dhanbad had put a question to the complainant which cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the question of jurisdiction, more so, when none of the witnesses examined during inquiry had stated about any occurrence having taken place in the district of Dhanbad. Mr. Tripathy in course of his argument had drawn comparison with the power of the police to investigate a cognizable case wherein jurisdiction is within the limits of the police station and the procedure to be adopted by the learned Magistrate under 201 of the Cr.P.C. In respect to the point of jurisdiction reference has been made to the judgment in the cases of "Bhura Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another" reported in AIR 2008 SC 2666, "Anil Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr." reported in 2015 (4) Eastern Cri. Cases 747 (Jhr.) and "Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others" reported in (2014) 12 SCC 362.
6. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that in the complaint petition itself the place of occurrence has been depicted to be within the Dhanbad Police Station as also at Greater Noida Phase II Police Station. It has been submitted that the statement made to the Court by the complainant was not a stray statement, rather such fact has been mentioned in the complaint petition itself. It has been submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition has a reasonable nexus with the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation and considering the provisions of Sections 178(d) and 179 of the I.P.C., the learned Magistrate was bestowed with the power to take cognizance. It has therefore been submitted that since a part cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Dhanbad, the learned Magistrate was within his powers to proceed with the complaint and take cognizance. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention has referred to the cases of "Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee" reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30, "Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and Anr."
-4-reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301 and a decision of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 406 of 2014.
7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the complaint petition. Although in the complaint, a major part of the allegations are confined to the territorial jurisdiction of Greater Noida, but same part of the occurrence at Dhanbad also finds mention in the complaint petition. It has been alleged that after the complainant had left her matrimonial home on 10.09.2013 and had started residing at her parental house, after a few days petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 had come down to the residence of the complainant and had assured her family members that she would not be subjected to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. Subsequently on such assurance, the complainant was taken back to her matrimonial house where torture was once again meted out to her. This part of the allegation has been fortified by the statement of the complainant recorded under solemn affirmation in which she has stated that her in-laws used to come to Dhanbad making demand of dowry. There seems to be sufficient connectivity with the allegations made in the complaint petition and with the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation. In such circumstances therefore the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with respect to territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted. Moreover, the father of the complainant in course of inquiry had also stated that all the petitioners had come to Dhanbad and given an assurance that no cruelty shall be meted out to the complainant. Thus, the allegation in the complaint petition with respect to the inclusive jurisdiction of the Dhanbad Court has been sufficiently corroborated by the complainant as well as her father.
8. Section 201 of the Cr.P.C., deals with the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate, if he is not competent to take cognizance of the case. Such procedure includes returning the complaint if the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance, for its presentation before the appropriate court.
9. The procedure under Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. which is to be followed by the Magistrate in view of the complaint it cannot be gathered that the learned Magistrate does not have the territorial jurisdiction to proceed further. As has been held above, the allegations -5- made in the complaint petition and supported by the complainant as well as by her father in their respective statements does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Court at Dhanbad, and therefore, the learned Magistrate was within his precincts to proceed with the complaint, conduct an inquiry and thereafter take cognizance for the offences mentioned therein. Such circumstances, therefore makes the provision of Section 201 of Cr.P.C. redundant so far as the present case is concerned.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon various judicial pronouncements on the subject and the same are being dealt with as under. In the case of "Bhura Ram & others"
(supra), it was held as folows:
4. "The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law."
11. In the case of "Amarendu Jyoti & others"(supra), it was held as follows:
11. "We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon Respondent 2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."-6-
12. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred to the case of the Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (supra), wherein it was held as follows:
6. "Despite service being effected on the private respondent, no one has appeared for any of the accused respondents. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of mal treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part.
Therefore, clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long steps should be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed."
13. In the case of "Sunita Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar and another" (supra), it was held as follows:
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 non 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 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."
14. Section 178(d) of the Cr.P.C. envisages that "when an offence consists of several acts done in several local areas, it may be inquire into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such areas". The -7- complaint petition includes within its fold the local areas of Greater Noida and Dhanbad where the question of demand of dowry and assurance of not to ill-treat the complainant had taken place and therefore, the complainant was within her rights to have instituted a criminal case either at the local police station at Greater Noida or in the district of Dhanbad. The filing of the complaint at Dhanbad is in consonance with the power to proceed with the complaint. No doubt, in the case of "Amrendu Jyoti and others" (supra), the ouster of the wife from her matrimonial house and her residing at her parental house would not confer territorial jurisdiction of the Courts situated in her parental house, as such offence is held to be not a continuing offence, but the averments made in the complaint case do suggests that it was at the instance of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and as per the statement of the father of the complainant - petitioner no. 4 also had taken back the complainant on assurance not to ill treat her in future. The case of "Amrendu Jyoti and others" (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
15. As a cumulative result of the discussion made hereinabove, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad did have the territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint case and on inquiry take cognizance vide order dated 01.10.2015 and therefore there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3