Delhi High Court
Roshan Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Delhi on 13 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000VAD(DELHI)693
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
ORDER
Crl. Rev. 180/2000 & Crl. 1299/2000
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court which has framed the charge has no jurisdiction to do so since the marriage was solemnised in Bihar and the girl has her marital home in Gorakpur. He however, submits that at the time when the complaint was filed the father of the girl was residing in Delhi and so the girl was also residing in Delhi. He further submits that merely because the girl residing in Delhi it does not given the Delhi Court, jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the State submits that offences u/Ss. 406 and 498A are continuous offences, and therefore, the Delhi Court will have jurisdiction since the complainant before lodging a complaint was a resident of Delhi and at that time she had not received her dowry items back. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the State and having gone through the judgment of M.M. Mahila Court, Shahdara, Delhi. I find no infirmity in the judgment under challenge. The revision petition is dismissed, accordingly.
ORDER ON CHARGE:
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Vinay d/o Krishan Dev Pandey was married to accused Roshan on 2.6.96. After marriage, she was harassed by her husband Roshan, mother-in-law Meena Tiwari and father-in-law Yogender Tiwari for not bringing dowry, demanded by them. On 9th January, her parents took her to matrimonial home. She was turned out of her house by her in-law by stating that she was fat and was not beautiful. They would bring another bride who would be more beautiful and would bring more dowry.
2. I have heard arguments from both sides. Ld. defense Counsel has prayed for discharge of all accused by stating that marriage between parties was solemnised in Bihar. Cruelty and harassment was done at her matrimonial house at Gorakhpur. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. He has relief upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohanlal and another Vs. State 1999 (III) A.D. (Cr.) DHC 369. On the other hand, Ld. APP has also relief upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and Anr. 1999 II AD (Delhi) 733 and stated that this Court has jurisdiction to try the case as offences u/s. 498A IPC and 406 IPC are continuing ones and demand of return of dowry articles has been made by the complainant in Delhi.
3. I have perused the case file. It is not disputed that marriage between parties was solemnised in Bihar and complainant lived at her matrimonial home at Gorakhpur after marriage where the alleged harassment and cruelty was stated to have been committed upon her. The sole question to be decided is whether Delhi Court has jurisdiction to try this case or not.
4. Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. deals with jurisdiction of Criminal courts in enquiry and trials. Section 177 provides the general rule that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Sections 178 to 184 Cr.P.C. carve out certain exceptions to the general rule. Section 178 Cr.P.C. provides for the place of enquiry of trial when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas as offence was committed or whether the offence was committed partly in one area and partly in other or where a continuing offence is committed in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas.
5. Section 178 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below for ready references:-
a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an of-
fence was committed, or
b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
d) Where it consists or several acts done indifferent local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having juris-
diction over any of such local areas.
6. Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. provides for the place of enquiry or trial for the offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. It provides that such offence can be tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused persons.
Section 181 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below for ready reference:-
(4) Any of offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of an offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by accused persons.
7. Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 supplements the law with regard to offence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as dowry articles are concerned. It provides that where any dowry article is re- ceived by any person, that persons shall transfer it to the woman in con- nection with whose marriage that articles has been received and pending such transfer shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. In other words, the person receiving the dowry articles is under a legal obligation to transfer the same to the woman for whom he holds the dowry in trust.
8. No doubt the marriage was solemnised in Bihar and complainant lived at her matrimonial home at Gorakpur but she made the demand of the return of her dowry articles at Delhi through her complaint filed before dowry cell, Nanakpur on 20.2.297.
9. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi and another, 1999 II AD (Delhi) 733 has observed that, "Offence u/s. 498A and 406 IPC are continuing ones and in order to provide real protection and to avoid any ambiguity, it would be desirable that offences u/ss. 498A & 406 IPc relating to matrimonial matters should be included in sub-section (2) of Section 182 Cr.P.C."
10. In Arun Vyas and Anr. Vs. Anita Vyas , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "The essence of the offence in Section 498A IPC is cruelty which is a continuing offence and in each occasion on which the wife was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation."
11. Section 178 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that a continuing offence can be enquired into or tried by the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence in committed.
12. Section 179 Cr.P.C. provides that an offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction an act, which is an of- fence, has been done or such consequence has ensued, Section 179 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below for ready references:-
"When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and or a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into a tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."
13. In the present case, complainant Vinay has been residing with her parents at Delhi after having been turned out from her matrimonial home. She was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws at Gorakpur but consequences of those attrocities and mental torture are still following at Deli. In Sat- vinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr. 1999 VIII Ad (SC) 409, Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the appeal of appellant by setting aside the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding quashing of FIR. Directions were given to the Investigating Officer to complete investiga- tion as early as possible. In the above mentioned case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR No. 34/93 u/s. 406/498A IPC registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar by holding that Delhi police has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence.
14. In view of the clear provisions of law, discussed above, I am of the considered view that offences u/Ss. 498A and 406 IPC are continuing ones and this Court has jurisdiction to try the offence as stridhan articles are demanded by the complainant from accused at Delhi where consequences of atrocities and mental torture were still following. Accordingly, judgment relied upon by Ld. defense Counsel is of no avail to accused.
15. Moreover, Section 220(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that accused may be charged or tried at one trial if they have committed more than one offence. Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. inter alia runs as below:-
"If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences, than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence."
16. In the present case, harassment and cruelty have been alleged to have been committed by all accused. They have also misappropriated her dowry articles by retaining them and both the offences are so connected together as to form a part of the same transaction. In view of clear provision contained in Sec. 220(1) Cr.P.C. I am of the considered view that this court has very much jurisdiction to try the offence.
17. In view of above discussion, I do not find any ground to discharge all accused. On perusal of case file, it becomes clear that all accused have committed prima facie offences u/Ss. 498A and 406 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC. Accordingly, all accused are liable to be proceeded u/Ss. 498A and 406 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
Announced in open court today.