Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vks.Subash, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 April, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6113, 5976, 5998 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:-
All the criminal petitions arise out of same crime number, against same respondents and the issue involved in all the three criminal petitions are also the same, but petitioners/accused are different. Hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of with a common order taking the Criminal Petition no.6113 of 2020 as a leading case as it is filed by accused no.1.
Crl.P.No.6113 of 2020:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioner/A1.
Crl.P.No.5976 of 2020:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioner/A4.
Crl.P.No.5998 of 2020:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioners/A2 and A3. 2
5. Sri V.R.Aavula, senior counsel argued on behalf of the counsel for the accused in all the three criminal petitions.
6. The case of the prosecution is that basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent i.e. Station House Officer of Tenali Rural police station, Guntur District has registered a case in Crime no.272/2019 for the offences under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made in the complaint are that the marriage was solemnized on 08.6.2017 at Gowtham Grand, Tenali. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner/A1 have stated that the petitioner is running Surya books business worth Rs.200crores and the daily income of the petitioner is more than two lakhs. Believing the same, the parents of the defacto complainant have given 160 sovereigns of gold and 25 kgs of silver and six lakhs for the engagement expenses and fifty lakhs for the marriage expenses and in addition, they have spent more than 50lakhs for the marriage. After marriage, the defacto complainant went to Chennai along with her parents and there they have spent more than five lakhs for house hold things. After a week the defacto complainant was sent to office and all the other household work was also entrusted to her, her mother in law stopped all the servant maids and she started abusing the defacto complainant and also harassed physically.
7. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant i.e. A1, father in law, mother in law and brother in law used to scold the defacto complainant with abusive language and they use to told that the defacto complaint is utterly poor and they are not equal to that of the petitioner's family. They further demanded two crores of money 3 as additional dowry. When the same was informed to the parents of the defacto complainant, they have arranged 50 lakhs at one time and 50 lakhs another time to her husband. The husband of the defacto complainant i.e. A1 used to come to home late hours and used to scold her to get additional dowry. Apart from attending the office work after completion, she use to attend household works and cooking.
8. When the defacto complainant and her husband went to Germany, Switzerland, her husband i.e. A1 left the petitioner by taking away her passport and visa. Though at last they reached Chennai, the petitioner did not respond to her call and they have not picked up phone. Whenever the parents came to Chennai, they were asked to stay at hotels and they were never allowed to the house of the petitioner and they were not allowed to take lunch or dinner.
After making other several allegations she finally stated that she came to Tenali i.e. parental house.
9. Basing on the said allegations, the 1st respondent had investigated the crime by examining nine witnesses i.e. LW1 to LW9, laid charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.427/2020 against A1 to A4 i.e. petitioners in all the three criminal petitions.
10. The allegations in the complaint are that:
...The 2nd respondent's marriage with the petitioner was performed on 8.6.2017 at Tenali, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Accused were introduced through LW7 of Takkellapadu village to the 2nd respondent family. The petitioner claimed that he is carrying on Sura college of competition and they are worth of 200 crores properties and earning Rs.2 lakhs per day. Her parents have given Rs.50lakhs cash 4 and 160 sovereign of gold and 25 kgs of silver articles at the time of marriage to the petitioner and A2 to A3 towards dowry and also given Rs.6lakhs towards clothes and spent about Rs.50lakhs for marriage expenses. Her parents have also given Rs.10 sovgns of gold chain, brasslet and diamong right to petitioner. She was asked to look after the companies held by them and can spent Rs.1,50,000/- per month towards he personal expenditure. After marriage she joined the matrimonial home at Chennai and that time her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs for furniture to the petitioner.
After a week she was asked to look after the affairs of the office and also house hold by discarding cook, maid, dhobi and other workers from home. A3 kept harassing her mentally and subjected to cruelty. She informed to her parents and they advised to be patient. A2 was also abusing her in filthy language and harassing her physically and mentally. The A4 also harassed her physically and mentally by insulting her and her parents. The petitioner and A2 to A4 demanded to gift Mercedes Benz car to A4. But her parents told they did hot have that much money right now. Thus they keep harassing her physically and mentally and demanded to bring Rs.2crores from her parents. When she informed to her parents, they gave total 1 crore to petitioner. Even though they did not change their attitude, she kept informing to her parents. The petitioner used to beat her in drunken state and let her sleep in car shed. Once, the petitioner and other accused beat her indiscriminately and she got bleeding injury in her lip. She got unconscious. Later she left home due to fear and reached Tenali by train. Later her parents phoned to the A2 about questioning their behaviour. But they did not give reply properly.
Later her mother left her at the petitioner's house and requested them to look after her properly. However, they did not change their attitude and keep continued harassment and demanded to bring remaining Rs.1 crore. The petitioner took her to Germany and left her in Airport and went away with her passport and visa.
They did not allow her parents to their house. Her parents and LW4 to LW6 went to Madras and tried to pacify petitioner and other accused. They keep harassing as she would not get pregnant and got so many tests. However she got tests at Tenali. Doctors told she is perfect in health. The petitioner and A2 and A3 demanded to get so many medical rests, otherwise they would give divorce to her. On 01.01.2019 at 6 am, petitioner and other accused harassed her physically and mentally to bring Rs.1 crore and necked her out. She reached her parental home and informed the fact and then LWs 2,4 to 6 went to them and requested to take her for marital life. Burt the petitioner and other accused abused them and rejected. Hence she filed report for necessary action against the petitioner and other accused."
11. Assailing the said charge sheet, the petitioners filed the present three criminal petitions with the following grounds.
12. The 1st ground raised by the petitioners are that on the basis of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, no prima-facie case is constituted or offence is made out under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. Except making unfoundable and 5 unsustainable allegations which are bold and vague, no particulars of the incidence i.e. time or events have not been given in the complaint. In the entire complaint she had narrated only the incidents happened during the stay at matrimonial home are all general in nature. Nothing specific or serious in nature. Only to add all the family members, she has made omnibus allegations against the members of the family of A1. As per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that no investigation is to be carried out basing on omnibus allegations without any specific dates or incidents by implicating the family members of the husband and without having any foundation or material facts. To support the said contention, petitioners have relied on the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments:
1.Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.
When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
2. Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs State of U.P. & Anr.2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Could held that: 1
(2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184 2 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 153 6 "It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, there was no material placed on record by the complainant to justify the bald allegations which were made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. There are undisputed facts on record that the appellant's marriage was solemnized with late Mohd. Shameem Khan on 11 th December 2016 and from this wedlock, a male child was born on 23rd September, 2017 and her husband untimely passed away on 8th December, 2017 and until their period of matrimonial relationship, no complaint of any kind was ever made by her late husband (Mohd. Shameem Khan) and after she was paid his terminal benefits and got a compassionate appointment in his place as an A.N.M. by an order dated 19 th May, 2018 w.e.f. 28th April, 2018, all sort of issues were raised by the complainant (brother of her deceased husband) of making such false allegations with reference to her marriage and also for the terminal benefits which she received and there was not even prima-facie foundation to support the nature of allegations which were made.
Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged."
13. The second ground raised by the petitioners are that the incidents which were alleged in the complaint are taken place at the matrimonial house of the defacto complainant. None of the incidents including the receipt of the alleged dowry made by the complainant have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Tenali. Therefore the 1st respondent has neither power nor jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence and the learned Magistrate of the II Additional Judicial First Class Court, Tenali has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the offences.
14. As per Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C the place of enquiry and trial should be in the local jurisdiction where the offence has taken place and as far as section 178 deals with place of enquiry and trial 7 is also very clear that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in other it may be enquired into a trial by a court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. Even according to the defacto complainant on complaint all the incidents have taken place at matrimonial home at Chennai. Hence the registration of crime by the 1st respondent and taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate is contrary to the Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. To support his contention he has relied on the judgement reported in between Y.Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of police, Chennai and another3wherein it is recited that:
Section 177 of the Code deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, and reads as follows:
"Section 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."
Sections 177 to 186 deal with venue and place of trial. Section 177 reiterates the well-established common law rule referred to in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. IX para 83) that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occur and which alleged to constitute the crime. There are several exceptions to this general rule and some of them are, so far as the present case is concerned, indicated in Section 178 of the Code which read as follows:
"Section 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 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."
It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. 3 (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100 8 In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise.
The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action".
The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts.
The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In "Words and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action"
in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf.
When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
15. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even taking the allegations made against the petitioner that they were given 160 sovereigns of gold and 25 kgs of silver and six lakhs for the engagement expenses and fifty lakhs were given for the marriage expenses and in addition, they have spent more than 50lakhs for the marriage, would not come under the definition of dowry. The complainant herself has stated that all the above articles 9 and money were paid as a gift which would not come under the definition of dowry. For the same he has referred to section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Section 2: Definition of Dowry.- In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) By the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, At or before (or any time after the marriage)(in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
16. Even according to the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 it should be very clear that there should be a demand for dowry and there should be an agreement for giving or taking of dowry. Then only section 4 and 5 would apply. In fact as per section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is very clear that any property or valuables or security given or directly or indirectly by one party or other at the time of marriage or before or after the marriage would not attract the meaning of dowry. The same was interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in between Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others4 wherein it is recited that:
"The definition of the expression "dowry" contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Act cannot be confined merely to be "demand" of money, property or valuable security made at or after the performance of marriage. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of "dowry" emphasized that any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, "before, at or after" the marriage would be covered by the expression "dowry" and this definition as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression "dowry" occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression "dowry" is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any "demand"
of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fall within the mischief of "dowry" under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. 4 (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 10 Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also, more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the "demand of dowry" leads to the "dowry" under the Dowry Act has to be interpreted in the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it. The definition given in the statute is the determinative factor. The Dowry Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bridegroom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection or regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression "dowry" made punishable under the Dowry Act."
17. Basing on the above legal aspects, on the factual background has submitted that even taking Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of LW1 to LW9, no specific allegations are made against the petitioners to attract Section 498-A IPC. No evidence is placed before this court to show that the petitioners have demanded dowry or additional dowry from the defacto complainant or from their parents except making bold allegations and statements, nothing is made out against the petitioners and no relevant material is placed before the investigating authority for filing charge sheet against the petitioners. He has argued on the aspect of jurisdiction as well as the allegations made in the complaint are not specific. Even according to the complainant's statement itself shows that the petitioners are having more than 200 crores of property and is running a good business, there is no necessity for the petitioners to demand additional dowry. Hence the allegations made in the complaint is vague and frivolous and requested to quash the charge sheet.
18. After notice, 2nd respondent has appeared through counsel Sri Pavuluri Srinivas. Learned counsel, reply to the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that on perusal of the 11 complaint it clearly discloses that the allegations are specific, not bold, specific and serious in nature. In fact he has read out the entire complaint and pointed out all the allegations made in the complaint and how serious in nature and how badly she was treated at matrimonial home. To support his contention that how bold the allegations are he has referred to page 30 of the Criminal petition no.6113 of 2020. For better appreciation, the same are extracted hereunder.
"May marriage was solemnized with VKS Radesh on 08.6.2017 at her residence took place at Gautham Grand, Tenali as per Hindu rituals. Both families convinced me that my husband runs Surya college, Surya books business worth of 200 crores property told, my husband's daily income Rs.2lakhs profit. T0 lakhs given for marriage expenses by my father 160 sovereign gold and 25 kgs silver given to my husband by my father. Marriage expenses Rs.6lakhs given by father. Marriage and engagement expenses 50 lakhs to incurred by my father. 10 sovereigns of Gold (Bracelet, Diamond ring, Gold chain) given to Radhesh by my father and mother. If I manage these companies, I will be paid Rs.1,50,000/- per month, promised by father-in-law.
After marriage I went to Chennai. My father & mother gave Rs.5lakhs cash to purchase household things. Next week, I was sent to office. All household work was given to me. No servant maid. All servant maids were stopped by mother-in-law, used abusing words. She abused me mentally and physically. I was compelled not to reveal all these things to my parents. I was agreed to adjust. My father in law gave all the office work. In the office, he used the words prostitute and beat me. My husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law jointly abused my family as a beggar family. Subash demanded a Benz Car worth Rs.1.25crores. But my husband demanded cash 1.25cr. instead of car. My father assured to give Rs.1.25crores.
My husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law used abusive language such as no equal for marriage, utterly poor, munda, prostitute. They abused and asked to get Rs.2 crores of money. When I informed my parents, they gave one time Rs.50 lakhs another time 50 lakhs to my husband. Subash used to come home often. He asked me to adjust with his parents. If you inform your parents, we will push you out, so said Radhesh. After coming from office, I used to cook. But the meals I prepared, my mother in law used to put water. When asked, Andhra taste is not suitable for me, so you go for separate preparation for many days. I lived there without food. My husband beat me after drinking. I was asked to sleep in the shed. One day all beat me heavily and as a result, my mouth & lip bleeded. My husband strangled my neck with skipping rope to kill me. All tried to kill me. I became unconscious and after sometime, I came to Tirumangalam metro station and then to central station from there, I could not travel that night without getting reservation and stayed in the station and returned Tenali very early morning.12
On my unexpected surprise visit, my parents tensioned. My parents, when enquired over phone about my arrival, they could not get proper reply. Then my father took me to Chennai and enquired my father in law and husband to look after properly and kindly. But I found no change in their behaviour after that. They did not give money even to do purchase my personal things. My father put money in ATM account. That money, they used for their household expenses. Out of 2 crores demanded we paid one crores in two equal instalments, for non payment of one crore, I was psychologically harassed.
When I and my husband went to Germany, Switzerland, my husband escaped with my passport and visa. When I came to Chennai once at 11.30 p.m. I phoned to Radhesh, once he responded and did not pick up the phone. So I spent that night at Central station. So many times, this incident is repeated.
Whenever, the sons of Subash come to our house, I was asked to bath them forcefully. Subash also influenced and forced my husband and father in law, mother in law to blame me and beat me. The worst words they used about my father were bastard and my mother bitch.
Whenever, my parents come to Chennai, they were asked to stay in hotel. That is why they stayed in hotel. My parents were never invited even for lunch, my family members never took food in my husband's house.
For my brother marriage, my husband did not visit. My relatives talked this incidence in various bad tones and it was shameful to me.
All of my relations my parents, my brother, my brother's father in law, my mother's sister and her husband come to Chennai and when we were discussing, my father in law shouted at me to close my mouth. My relatives asked me, when we are here, he talks like this, when we are not there, how he will be behave, they asked.
When my husband was beating me, my father in law came with chapel and beat me. When I informed my parents, they asked me to adjust with them. All 1,2,3,4 jointly said that my parents cheated and got me married. They brought false allegations and forced me undergo medical test whether I could conceive or not.
I came to Tenali and after all tests, I informed my husband everything OK. They said these tests are false so come to Chennai and take tests. Madras reports also OK given by lady doctor. Doctor asked why you accepted for all these tests. No lady accepts. I told doctor, otherwise, my husband will divorce me. Doctor also asked my husband, as advised by the lady doctors to check my husband's fertility, my husband said I am OK 10th January 2019 morning 6 a.m. All pushed me out, of the house. I had no other option except go out to Tenali. All came to Chennai and asked to accept me but they refused them. Therefore, I request to take action against them."
19. Further he submitted that the 1st respondent had conducted the investigation by taking evidence from LW1 to LW9 and filed charge sheet stating that accused no.1 to 4 are liable punishment under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to LW1 statement, it is clear that she has stated 13 specific instances and the attitude of the petitioners and considering LW2 statement, he has clearly stated that the demand of additional dowry of two crores from the parents of the defacto complainant and also for not providing additional dowry, how they have harassed the daughter i.e. the defacto complainant. LW4 statement also clearly indicates the instances which are happened at the matrimonial home. Hence he has submitted that as stated by the petitioners counsel, the allegations are not vague or bold. Here they have made specific allegations against each and every accused how they have harassed the defacto complainant for additional dowry. Hence the judgments relied on by the petitioners are not helpful in the instant case.
20. Reply to the 2nd ground raised by the petitioners, he has submitted that the judgment relied on by the petitioners were over ruled by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in between Mahendra Prasad Mehta vs. State of Bihar; State of Uttarpradesh & others5. In the said judgment based on the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the jurisdiction of courts where women forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members are maintainable or not. As per the ratio decided by Y.Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of police, Chennai and another 2004 8 SCC 100; Ramesh and others vs. State of Tamil Naidu, 2005 3 SCC 507; Manish Ratan and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 2007 1 SCC 262; Amarendu Jyoti and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2014 12 SCC 362, the matter has 5 2019 LawSuit(SC) 1039 14 been referred to Full Bench and accordingly, the Full Bench has considered the issue which reads as follows:
"Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members". This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals.
The question that ha posed for an answer has nothing to do with the provisions of Sections 178 (b) or (c). What has to be really determined is whether the exception carved out by Section 179 would have any application to confer jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the parental house of the wife is located.
To answer the above question, one will have to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law [2 nd Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983)] by which Section 498A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code. The section itself may be noticed in the first instance:
498A: 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-
(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 like, 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."
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 15 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
We, therefore, hold that the counts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
21. In view of the above judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the issue and holds that the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A IPC. Hence the contention raised by the petitioners would not apply in this case. It is very clear that the respondents have forced the petitioners to left the matrimonial home and left with no option he has left the matrimonial home and filed a complaint at Tenali.
22. Reply to the 3rd contention, learned counsel has specifically stated that the ratio as relied on by the petitioners would not apply to this case. Here in the complaint it has been mentioned that the valuables and cash given at the time of marriage at their demand and hence it would squarely comes under the definition of dowry as per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Apart from that she has also made several instances where they have demanded valuables likes Mercedes Benz car worth Rs.1.25crores and also demanding of additional dowry of two crores. It is not out of place to mention that as per their demand 50 lakhs were paid to the parents of the petitioners and also 50 lakhs was paid to the A1 i.e. husband 16 of the defacto complainant. Hence taking the said facts into consideration it squarely covers under the definition of Dowry. Hence Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would apply in the case.
23. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and on perusal of the record, no doubt on perusal of the complaint, as well as the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C statements, it clearly establishes that the allegations are not vague. Though they have not filed any document and evidence it is a matter for trial. The allegations are specific and serious in nature. Not one or two, she made several allegations and instances in her complaint and the same were corroborated with the statements of list of witnesses in the charge sheet. The other ground raised by the petitioners with regard to the jurisdictional aspect is already decided by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahendra Prasad Mehta vs. State of Bihar; State of Uttarpradesh & others (as cited supra) and clearly held that the spouse who are taking shelter at the parental house, those who are driven away, left the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. In view of the said observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that the 1st Respondent i.e. Station House Officer, Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District and the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, are having jurisdiction to try the offences.
24. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the legal background and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, this 17 Court found no grounds to interfere at this stage and the matter should be decided only after full fledged trial.
25. Accordingly, all the three criminal petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 11.4.2022 RD 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6113, 5976, 5998 of 2020 Dated 11.4.2022 RD