Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Singh & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 9 July, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR JHAR R 846
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGHT COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1283 of 2005
---
1. Dhananjay Singh
2. Karu Prasad Singh
3. Sumitra Devi
4. Munni Devi
5. Sanjay Singh Petitioners
Verses
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nibha Kumari Opposite parties
---
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
---
For the Petitioner :- M/s. Sameer Saurabh, Rakesh Ranjan &
Sreenu Garapati, Advocates
For the State :- Mr. T.N.Verma, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
----
CAV ORDER
---
Reserved on:28.06.2010 Pronounced on: 09.07.2010
7/09.07.2010Challenge in this application filed by petitioners is to the order of cognizance dated 18.12.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 1253 of 2004 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners following the impugned order of cognizance and initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2.
The main ground on which the impugned order has been assailed is that the learned court below has no jurisdiction to try the case even on the basis of the allegations in the entire complaint petition.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also counsel for the State.
3. The case of the complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2 is that her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 Dhananjay Singh, was solemnized on 11.07.2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at her father's residence at Dhanbad. Earlier, at the time of engagement ceremony, a negotiation was held regarding the payment of dowry and the amount was settled at Rs. 3 lakhs and was paid by her father to the accused persons. Upon insistence of the petitioner No. 2 namely the father-in-law, the complainant's father gave a post dated cheque for a further sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for purchasing a motorcycle and other household articles. The amount of cheque was encashed by the brother-in-law of the complainant namely the petitioner No. 5.
After her marriage, she was taken to her matrimonial house at Anandpuri, 2 West Boring Canal Road, P.S.-Sri Krishna Puri, District - Patna (Bihar) where the marriage was consummated.
It is alleged that within a fortnight after she had gone to her matrimonial house, demand for more dowry began to be made by the husband and in-laws and in order to pressurize her to meet their demands, the accused persons began subjecting her to ill treatment and mental and physical cruelty.
Notwithstanding the alleged hostile behaviour, she had conceived and while she was in her family way, her husband brought her and left her at her father's house at Dhanbad on 28.11.2000. Five months later she delivered a baby boy on 14.04.2001, at her father's house, but even after receiving the information regarding the birth of the baby, neither the husband nor any member of her matrimonial house visited her to see the baby.
Ultimately, she returned to her matrimonial house along with her child on 25.06.2001. Her hope of restoration of peaceful conjugal relations was however, belied. The accused persons continued in their hostile behaviour against her subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty in their house. Finally the accused persons allowed her to leave her matrimonial house and go with her brother who had come from Dhanbad, but only after retaining all her personal belongings and her eight months old child. Thus, ever since she came back to her parents house at Dhanbad on 03.12.2001, she was never taken back to her matrimonial house by her husband and in-laws. On the contrary, her husband filed a writ application in the Patna High Court vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 16 of 2002 on 02.01.2002 praying for custody of his wife on the ground that her brothers have illegally detained her. She too had filed a writ application in the Patna High Court vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 122 of 2002 on 13.02.2002 seeking custody of her child. Pursuant to the directions of the Patna High Court, the custody of the child was delivered to her on 15.07.2002. During her brief period of stay at her matrimonial house, she had again conceived but on account of her ill health, she had delivered a dead child at the Dhanbad Hospital on 31.03.2002.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been filed with malafide intentions and with revengeful motives only for the purpose of causing harassment to the petitioner. To elaborate his arguments, learned counsel would read out the entire contents of the complaint petition and submit that even according to the allegations, the entire transactions relating to the alleged cruelty had occurred at Patna during the period of the complainant's brief stay at her matrimonial house. In the Habeas Corpus petition filed by her husband, in reply to a specific query made by the Court, the complainant had expressed that she was studying law at Dhanbad and therefore was not desirous to go back to Patna to join the company of her husband. Upon such refusal of the complainant to 3 resume and restore conjugal relations, the husband was compelled to file a matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Patna on 18.05.2004. Learned counsel argues that in the light of the admitted facts that no part of transaction relating to alleged cruelty and the demand for dowry had taken place at Dhanbad, the provisions of Section 177 Cr. P.C. Prohibits the jurisdiction of the local court at Dhanbad to entertain the complaint petition and to try the accused persons for any of the alleged offences. In support of his contentions, learned counsel would refer to and rely upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police 2004(8) SCC 100 and to an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(3) SCC 507.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, while offering arguments in support of the impugned order of cognizance, would submit that the offence of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is a continuing offence in view of the fact that the accused husband and his family members have compelled the complainant to leave her matrimonial house and to live in the house of her parents at Dhanbad, causing mental cruelty to her on account of the forced separation from her husband and deprivation of her conjugal rights.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order of the court below as also the materials available on record including the copy of the complaint petition filed by the Opposite Party No. 2.
7. From the admitted facts, it transpires that after her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 on 11.07.2000, though the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house where she lived with her husband sharing conjugal life with him and during such period had also conceived a child, but her stay there was only for a brief period. She had to return to her parents house at Dhanbad and ever since after her return to her parents house at Dhanbad on 13.12.2001, she had never gone back to her matrimonial house nor shared his company and association at any point of time thereafter even at Dhanbad.
8. It appears from the order dated 15.07.2002 passed by the Patna High Court in writ application filed by the husband vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 16 of 2002, that on her intentions being probed by the Court regarding restoration of conjugal life with her husband, she had expressed her total disinclination to go back to her husband's house. On the basis of the impression and understanding given by the lady, for her reasons not to unite with her husband, the Court had observed as follows :-
"It transpired that she has appeared at L.L.B part III examination and intends to join legal profession. It is clear 4 that she cannot be forced to go back to her husband's house. In any view, a writ of habeas corpus can be issued in cases of illegal custody or confinement. That not being the position as the wife is residing at her parental house on her own, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief asked for. The only option available to him is to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in accordance with law."
Thereafter on 18.05.2004 the husband (petitioner No. 1) filed a suit in the Family Court at Patna against his wife seeking an order of restitution of conjugal rights.
9. Four months later, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the complaint petition in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
10. On reading the entire allegations as contained in the complaint petition, it transpires that the entire transactions relating to the alleged cruelty is confined to the period when the complainant was living in her matrimonial house at Patna. There is no allegation that after her return from her matrimonial house to the house of her parents in December, 2001, there was any act of cruelty against her by her husband or in-laws nor was there any occasion for her husband or any member of his family to come in contact with the complainant at Dhanbad.
11. A similar controversy relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court in terms of the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) and in a subsequent judgement in the case of Manish Ratan & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 2006 (8) Supreme 372. In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra), the facts of the case indicative of acts of offences, had occurred in the matrimonial house of the wife at Nagercoil and wife had left her matrimonial house and went to Chennai. Having regard to the facts that the alleged offensive acts were committed at Nagercoil, the Apex Court had held that the court at Chennai did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
The facts in the case of Manish Ratan (Supra) also relate to the offence of cruelty on account of demand for dowry and upon considering the facts, the Apex Court had declared that the offence could not be held to be continued one only because the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial house.
Similar facts came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain Vs. State of Jharkhand 2007(2) JLJR 282 and relying upon the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) and in the case of Manish Ratan (Supra), this Court had held that the court, where the complaint petition was filed against the accused persons, has no 5 jurisdiction and therefore it quashed the entire criminal proceeding pending against the accused persons.
12. The admitted facts of the present case would also demonstrate that no part of the alleged conduct relating to cruelty, was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Dhanbad. All such acts, had confined to the complainant's matrimonial house at Patna. It also appears that the complainant had intentionally abstained herself from returning to her matrimonial house since she was pursuing her studies at Dhanbad and wanted to practice law at Dhanbad. The facts also indicate that ever since the separation of the spouses in December, 2001, there has been no occasion for them to unite or even to meet. The contention of the complainant that the institution of the matrimonial suit for restitution of the conjugal rights, has caused her mental cruelty, cannot be accepted as an act of cruelty since it is within the matrimonial rights of the husband to take legal recourse for restoration of his conjugal rights.
13. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding following the order of cognizance pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide Complaint Case No. 1253 of 2004 against the present petitioners/accused, is hereby quashed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Birendra/A.F.R.