IMPORTANT POINT
Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area and takes place in different local areas as per Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 177-179 -FIR under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 lodged by appellant wife against husband and her inlaws at Gaya-On challenge thereagainst SDJM held that Court at Gaya had jurisdiction to try the case-However High Court reversed said decision holding that the proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction-Appeals thereagainst- Specific assertion by appellant-wife about ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of husband and his relatives at Ranchi and that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry-In view of Sections 178 and 179 of Code, the offence in the instant case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas -One of the local areas being Gaya, Magistrate at Gaya had jurisdiction to proceed with criminal case instituted therein-Offence being a continuing one and the episode at Gaya being only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill-treatment meted out to complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted.-Impugned order of High Court could not be sustained- Appeals allowed. (Paras 11, 12)
       Facts of the Case :
        An FIR under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was lodged by appellant wife against husband and her inlaws at Gaya. On challenge thereagainst SDJM held that Court at Gaya had jurisdiction to try the case. However High Court reversed said decision holding that the proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Specific assertion by appellant-wife about ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of husband and his relatives at Ranchi and that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry.In view of Sections 178 and 179 of Code, the offence in the instant case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas .One of the local areas being Gaya, Magistrate at Gaya had jurisdiction to proceed with criminal case instituted therein. Offence being a continuing one and the episode at Gaya being only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill-treatment meted out to complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. Impugned order of High Court could not be sustained. Appeals were allowed.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) Leave granted.

2) The only issue for consideration in both the appeals is whether criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant herein at Gaya against her husband and his relatives are maintainable or not for lack of jurisdiction?

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein got married to Sanjay Kumar Saini - respondent No.2 herein, on 16.04.2000 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gaya. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, her father gifted all the household utensils, Almirah, Double Bed, Dining Table, Fridge, Television and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash. In addition to the same, her father spent so much money to solemnize the marriage and for gifts to other family members of her husband. In spite of the same, immediately after the marriage, she was blamed for bringing less dowry by her in-laws and they started harassing and torturing her. Her husband also used to support his family members to torture her. It is her further grievance that her husband demanded an additional amount of Rs. 4 lakhs from her parents for renovation of their house at Ranchi. When she was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of her matrimonial home at Ranchi and brought to her parental home at Gaya. After giving birth to a girl child the circumstances became even worse and everyone started blaming her that she had brought an additional burden on them. After some time, her husband came out with a new demand that unless her father gives his house at Gaya to him she will not be taken back to her matrimonial home at Ranchi. Having continuous torture and unbearable nature of treatment by her husband and in-laws for years and years, having no other option, the appellant lodged a First Information Report (in short “FIR”) being No. 66 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short “D.P. Act”) at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya.

b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusal of the charge-sheet, found a prima facie case against the accused persons, accordingly, took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against all of them and transferred the case to the Court of sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for trial. Though an objection was raised stating that the Court at Gaya has no jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate, after considering all the relevant materials including the allegations in the complaint, rejected the said objection.

c) Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42478 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. By order dated 19.03.2010, the High Court found that the proceedings at Gaya are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and quashed the entire proceedings in Magadh Medical College Police Station Case No. 66 of 2007 with liberty to the appellant herein to file the same in appropriate Court. Following the said order, the High Court on 29.04.2010 allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45153 of 2009 filed by Sanjay Kumar Saini - the husband (respondent No.2 herein) and quashed the criminal proceedings lodged against him.

d) Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 42478 of 2009 and 29.04.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45153 of 2009, the appellant-wife has filed the above appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions.

4) Heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - State.

5) Inasmuch as the issue is confined to territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant-wife, there is no need to go into other factual aspects. Since the SDJM has found that the Court at Gaya has jurisdiction to try th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 398

Cases Referred (3)