Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Seema Jha & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 7 August, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
CRIMINAL MISCELLENOUS PETITION No. 400 OF 2006
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 886 OF 2011
WITH
CRIMINAL MISCELLENOUS PETITION No. 1981 OF 2011
(In the matter of applications under Sections 482 / 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure).
In Cr.M.P. No. 400 of 2006
1. Kumari Seema Jha
2. Vindhya Vasini Devi
3. Shri Ram Nandan Jha
4. Sudhansu Jha
5. Smt. Sadhna Mishra ..... ... Petitioners
In Cr. Revision No. 886 of 2011
1. Ram Nandan Jha
2. Bidhya Basini Devi
3. Kumari Seema Jha
4. Smt. Sadhna Mishra ..... ... Petitioners
In Cr.M.P. No. 1981 of 2011
1. Sudhanshu Jha
2. Ram Nandan Jha
3. Bidhya Basini Devi
4. Kumari Seema Jha
5. Smt. Sadhna Mishra ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rimjhim Kumari ..... ... Opposite Parties
(in all cases)
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : M/s Moti Gope, Nehru Mahto &
Laxmi Murmu, A.P.Ps.
For the O.P. No.2 : M/s Naresh Prasad Singh &
Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocates
--------
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
-------
By Court:- All these applications arise out of the same case and as such, they are
taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2.
3. Petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 400 of 2006 have prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, whereby, on the basis of statements made in the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of two witnesses examined at the enquiry stage, the Court below has -2- found prima facie offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and has directed for issuing summons against the petitioners.
4. In Cr. Revision No. 886 of 2011, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in the said Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 1981 of 2011, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in the same Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, whereby the application, filed under Section 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court below was also dismissed.
6. The complaint petition has been brought on record, which shows that the petitioners are the husband and other in-laws of the complainant. The marriage between the parties had taken place at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar and thereafter the complainant went to live with her husband to Kolkata and thereafter at Gurgaon, in the State of Haryana, where her husband was gainfully employed. There is allegation against the husband and other in-laws of the complainant of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture, during her stay with her husband and at her in-laws' place. Whatever allegations of torture and cruelty are there against the petitioners, they had been committed either at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana, or at Bhagalpur and Gaya in the State of Bihar. On being tortured and subjected to cruelty, the complainant came to Ranchi, where her father and brother are residing, and thereafter she has not been taken back to her matrimonial home. It is alleged in the complaint petition that even at Ranchi, threats were given to her by her husband on telephone and accordingly, the compliant case was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioners, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which, she supported her case and two witnesses were also examined at the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, prima facie offence as stated above, has been found against the petitioners by the impugned order.
7. From perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that no occurrence had taken place at Ranchi and it is only alleged that due to cruelty and torture, she came to Ranchi at the place of her father and brother and she is still here. From the -3- complaint petition, it apparent that there is no allegation that any of the petitioners even ever visited to Ranchi. It is also the case of the petitioners that all the family members of the husband have been falsely implicated in this case and accordingly, the prayer for discharge was also made, which has been rejected by the learned Court below, by order dated 15.9.2011, which has been challenged in Cr. Revision No. 886 of 2011. The complaint petition clearly shows that whatever allegations are there against the petitioners of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture, they had been committed either in the State of Haryana or in the State of Bihar. No part of occurrence had ever taken place at Ranchi and the petitioners never visited the State of Jharkhand. The only allegation against the petitioners for making out an offence at Ranchi, is stated in paragraph-20 of the compliant petition which reads thus:-
"20. That the complainant there-after frequently receiving phone calls at Ranchi of the accused No.1 with threatening for the dire consequences if she takes any legal action for Dowry demands made by them and cruelty caused to her."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since no part of the occurrence has taken place in the State of Jharkhand, the Court at Ranchi has no jurisdiction to try the offence and accordingly, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the State of Jharkhand is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that even if it is accepted that the telephone calls were made by the husband to her wife at Ranchi giving threats to her, the same shall not amount to cruelty in the State of Jharkhand. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhatishgarh & Ors, reported in 2015 (1) East Cr C 231 (SC), wherein, in a similar circumstance in a matrimonial dispute, where the torture and cruelty had been committed at Delhi and the complainant, who was residing at Ambikapur, was given threatening on phone from Delhi, the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"8. 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 the respondent No. 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. ----------- 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 --------."-4-
Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel has submitted that merely on account of the fact that the complainant has been living at Ranchi after leaving her matrimonial home, it cannot be said that any mental cruelty is continuing upon her at Ranchi, nor the fact that threats were allegedly given to the complainant by her husband on telephone at Ranchi, shall constitute any offence at Ranchi. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the continuance of criminal proceeding at Ranchi against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that she has been deserted by her husband and in-laws and she is living at her parents' house at Ranchi. Thus, she is continuing the sufferings of mental cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws even at Ranchi. It is also submitted that this apart, there is specific allegation against the husband to have threatened the complainant on telephone at Ranchi and accordingly, the part of the cause of action had taken place at Ranchi as well, and accordingly, the Ranchi Court has the jurisdiction to try the offence and there is no illegality in the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2 has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 633, wherein in an offence of abduction for ransom, which had taken place at Lucknow and demand was raised at Haldwani with threat of putting the victim to death, and it was found that two incidences had taken place in the State of Uttar Pradesh, i.e., abduction and death of the victim, but one of the ingredients, i.e., threat was given at the house of the victim at Haldwani, Nainital, demanding ransom money, the Apex Court held that since one of the ingredients had taken place within the jurisdiction of Haldwani, Nainital, therefore, the Court at Nainital had the jurisdiction to try the offence. Placing reliance of this decision, learned counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners at Ranchi, and there cannot be any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioners by this Court at this stage.
10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that whatever allegations are there against the petitioners to -5- have subjected the complainant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry including the assaults, they had either taken place at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana or at Bhagalpur and Gaya in the State of Bihar. No part of the offence had been committed in the State of Jharkhand and there is no allegation in the complaint petition that the petitioners even ever visited Ranchi. The only allegation is that the threats were given by the husband to the complainant on telephone. In my considered view, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Amarendu Jyoti's case (supra), wherein in similar circumstance, it was held that giving threats by telephone would not create a jurisdiction. In the said case, the Apex Court has also held that simply for the fact that the complainant was staying at her parents' place, would not constitute a continuing offence, as contemplated under sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. The decision of the Apex Court in Vishwanath Gupta's case (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, relates to an offence under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that law in Amarendu Jyoti's case (supra), has been laid down by the Apex Court in the matter for the offence under section 498-A IPC, I am of the considered view that the facts of this case are fully covered by this decision.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 8.2.2006, 15.9.2011 and 18.5.2011, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005, including the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the said case, are hereby, quashed.
12. All these three applications, are accordingly, allowed. It is made clear that it shall be open for the complainant to bring her cause of action in the Court of competent jurisdiction and she may also take back her complaint petition from the Court below for being filed in the competent Court.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 7th August 2015 NAFR/R.Kr.