Jharkhand High Court
Ranvijay Prasad Deo vs The State Of Jharkhand And Punam Singh ... on 20 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)BLJR1316, 2007CRILJ3553, 2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 1042 (JHAR.) = 2007 CRI. L. J. 3553, 2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 971, (2007) 2 EASTCRIC 488, (2007) 55 ALLINDCAS 956 (JHA), (2007) 2 JLJR 193
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Page 1317
1. These two revision applications arise out of the same impugned order i.e. order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the Trial Court whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 245/227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge was rejected and therefore, both the revision petitions heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 749 of 2006 is the husband of the complainant-opposite party whereas, the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2006 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant.
2. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the complainant - opposite party No. 2 Punam Singh (hereinafter called as Complainant) filed a Complaint Case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad being the Complaint Case No. 781 of 2004 against the petitioners i.e. her husband, father-in-law namely Kuseshwar Prasad Deo and mother-in-law namely Kusum Devi and one Ekta Roy, said to be the second wife of her husband for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging therein that the complainant was married to the petitioner Ranvijay Prasad Deo on 24.06.1988 and at the time of her marriage, Rs. 1,50,000/-, one Hero Honda Motorcycle and Gold weighing 30 Bhar were given to the petitioner and his parents but, after few days of the marriage, the accused petitioners started torturing her for more money. Due to the pressing demand of the accused persons, the father of the complainant was compelled to pay Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to her husband - accused/petitioner.
The accused-husband subsequently sold the Hero Honda Motorocycle and then for purchasing a Maruti Car, again started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the in-laws. The complainant explained the financial constraints of her father but her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law mercilessly beaten her and started regularly giving her physical and mental torture. Subsequently, the complainant and her husband went to her parent's place. It is alleged that because of the act of torture committed by the accused persons, the complainant was compelled to stay back at her parent's Page 1318 place. Thereafter, in order to extract more money, her husband/petitioner remarried with accused No. 4 Ekta Roy on 01.11.1996 by swearing an affidavit that this complainant was died and since thereafter, he (husband-petitioner) is living with the accused No. 4 as husband and wife.
The further allegations in the complaint petition was that after some time, in the year 2000, her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law called the complainant at their Ranchi residence on the pretext that she would not be tortured in the future and when the complainant went there, she again felt that the accused persons were conspiring to do her away and in that course, the complainant was taken inside a room and thereafter, her mother-in-law poured Kerosene Oil on her and her husband set fire due to which, the bed and saree of the complainant got burnt and she started raising Hulla due to which, the neighbouring people came there and then, she was saved. Thereafter, the complainant went back to her parent's place.
The further allegation is that the complainant on being called by her father-in-law and mother-in-law, went to their Deoghar residence and on their repeated assurance that her husband would severe his connection with the accused No. 4 Ekta Roy. But there in the night, her husband pointed revolver on the temple and got her signed on some papers. When she objected, her husband and her in-laws threatened to kill her.
The complainant any how, after saving her life, again came back to her parent's place. On 11.04.2004, at about 10:00 in the morning, her husband (petitioner) and her mother-in-law came to Dhanbad and threatened her that if she would take any action, she and her family members would be killed. Ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 01.06.2004.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons. After the complainant led evidence before Charge, a petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge on the ground that the case was absolutely false and fabricated and there was no material to frame charge against them and that the Court at Dhanbad has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court after hearing the parties by the impugned order and hence this application.
4. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that even according to the case of the prosecution, the marriage took place at Munger and no part of the incidents alleged in the complaint petition, took place at Dhanbad and therefore, the Dhanbad Court has no jurisdiction to try the case.
In support of his submissions, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. .
5. The question as to whether there was sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner is concerned, it appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate considered the allegations made in the complaint and also the evidence of three witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant before charge and then has come to the conclusion that from the evidence adduced, there was sufficient ground for presuming that the accused Kailash Prasad Deo has committed the offence under Sections 498A, 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused father-in-law namely Kuseshwar Prasad Deo and mother-in-law namely Kusum Devi Page 1319 have committed offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian penal Code and the accused Ekta Roy committed the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the India Penal Code.
6. So far the points regarding territorial jurisdiction, of the Court at Dhanbad is concerned, it appears that the learned Magistrate has mentioned in his impugned order that from paragraph-4 of the evidence of C.W.-1, para-2 of the evidence of C.W.-2 and para-5 of the evidence of C.W.-3 wherein, they have categorically stated that all the accused persons in this case did come to Dhanbad on 11.04.2004 and then threatened her at her parent's place that she and her family members would be destroyed and killed and therefore, the period of occurrence alleged was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad District and that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was continuing offence because of the fact that the complainant was forced to take shelter at her parent's house and therefore, the consequence of cruelty culminated at Dhanbad and as such, Dhanbad Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
7. The Supreme Court, in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.`(Supra), after considering the provisions of Section 177 to 186 of Cr.P.C. i.e. "the ordinary place of enquiry or trial and place of enquiry or trial" held that the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the above case, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts of the said case, came to the conclusion that even according to the case of the complainant, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Court and all the incident, as alleged by the complainant herself, took place at Nagercoil. Therefore, the Courts at Chennai did not had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings and directed the return of the complaint to the complainant with a liberty that if she chooses, may file the complaint in the appropriate Court.
8. In the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case similar to the facts of the present case. In that case also, the gist of allegations of the complainant Sujata Mukherjee was that on account of dowry demand, she was maltreated not only at the in-laws house at Raigarh but as a consequence of such event, her husband had come also at house of her parent at Raipur and had assaulted her there. In such facts, the Supreme Court held that the complaint revealed a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted out to the complainant in the hands of the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasions, all the accused persons had taken part and on other occasion, one of the accused had taken part. Therefore, Clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted which reads as under:
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 Page 1320
(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.
9. In the present case, as already noticed, the allegations in the complaint as well as in the evidence adduced before charge on behalf of the complainant, clearly speak that on 11th April, 2004, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. the husband and the mother-in-law of the complainant came to Dhanbad i.e. the parent's place of the complainant where she was residing and threatened the complainant and four family members to destroy and to kill them and therefore, relying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Supra) hold that in the present case also, the offence was continuing and therefore, the Court at Dhanbad is competent and has jurisdiction to try the case. The case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the facts are quite different in the case in hand.
10. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Dhanbad Court has no jurisdiction is therefore, rejected.
11. So far the sufficiency of materials for framing of charge or for coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed offence alleged and I find that the learned Magistrate has considered the allegations made in the complaint petition, the statements of the witnesses examined before charge on behalf of the complainant and then has come to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for presumption that the accused persons have committed the offence and I fully agree with the said findings of the learned Magistrate after going through the allegations made in the complaint petition and also the statements of the witnesses of the complainant examined before the charge copy of which has been annexed in the present revision application.
Consequently, in view of the discussions and findings above, I find no merit in these two revision applications. Consequently, both the revision applications are dismissed.