Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pallapati Suman vs Nethala Sushmitha on 5 May, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.287 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
2. The present transfer criminal petition is filed seeking to withdraw C.C.No.840 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid and the same may be transferred to any other competent Court in Visakhapatnam.
3. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the 1st respondent herein and they are A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.840 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the said C.C. is filed by the 1st respondent only to harass the petitioners, who are staying at Visakhapatnam. Moreover, all the instances as alleged in the complaint were took place at Visakhapatnam only and she never stayed at Nuzvid, which is a parental house of the 1st respondent but she is residing at Hyderabad after leaving the petitioners' house at Visakhapatnam. The said fact is evident from the complaint itself where she stated that after necking out of the house by the petitioners, she went to Hyderabad in the month of April 2017 and she filed D.V.C.No.196 of 2017 at Nampally Court. As such she never stayed at her parental house in Nuzvid. He further contended that even according to the petitioners, she filed D.V.C.No.196 of 2017 at Nampally Court, which shows that she 2 has been staying at Hyderabad only as such the present C.C.No.840 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid is liable to be transferred to Visakhapatnam for want of jurisdiction since all the instances of the crime were took place at Visakhapatnam only. Therefore, the present petition should be considered and to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that Section 166 Cr.P.C. statements filed along with the present transfer criminal petition reveal that the father of the 1st respondent, who made statement on 22.10.2018 before the police, categorically stated that they brought their daughter to their house at Nuzvid from the house of her in-laws, after break open of the lock at the in-laws house. After living sometime with them, to do employment, she went to Hyderabad. The statements made by the brothers and others also reveal the same. In support of the case, learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1, wherein it is held at para Nos.14 to 16 as follows:
"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while 1 (2019) 5 SCC 384 3 understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty"
appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatise the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.
15. 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 498-A of the Penal Code. The definition of "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 Explanations (a) & (b) to Section 498-A of the Penal Code, which define "cruelty". The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass 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 4 account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A 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 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
16. We, therefore, hold 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 of the Penal Code."
6. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmad and others2, wherein it reiterated the judgment rendered in Rupali Devi''s case (supra 1) and held as follows:
"We, therefore, hold 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 of the Penal Code.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as a matter of fact, the 1st respondent herein was taken over by her parents to their house and she spent some time along with her parents and thereafter she went to Hyderabad for employment. As such, the facts of the present case in hand are very much similar to the facts in the ratio laid down in Rupali Devi's case (supra 1). 2 2020 SCC Online SC 1308 5
8. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date: 05.05.2022 Ivd 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.287 of 2018 Date: 05.05.2022 Ivd