Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 420

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Rupali Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2012, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623 of 2019, Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5695, 8246 of 2010, 7387 of 2011, 5052, 5139 of 2014
Decided On : 09-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv./A.C. Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar N., Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR
For Respondents: Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Addya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar-1, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Ram Kumar, Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
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 498A.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A r/w sections 177, 179, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cruelty done in matrimonial home – Wife forced to leave and go to her parental home – No overt act of cruelty by husband or hiss family members in wife’s parental home where the wife had taken shelter – In the normal course, u/s 177, the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed would have the power and authority to take cognizance of the offence in question – However, u/s 179, if an offence is committed partly in one place and partly in another; or if the offence is a continuing offence or where the consequences of a criminal act result in an offence being committed at another place – Courts at that place will be competent to take cognizance. (Para 6, 8)
       (b) Words and phrases – Continuing offence – An act or omission which continues, and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. (Para 9)
       (1972) 2 SCC 890 – Relied upon
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A r/w section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Cruelty to women – Can be both physical or mental – Aspects of the impact on 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 cannot be ignored – The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife continues to traumatize her even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter 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 – It may also domestic violence such as harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse – Held, 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 498A. (Para 14, 15, 16)
       (2004) 8 SCC 100; (2005) 3 SCC 507; (2007) 1 SCC 262; (2014) 12 SCC 362; (1997) 5 SCC 30; (2011) 11 SCC 301; (2003) 11 SCC 126 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       The precise question arising in this case is “Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members”.
       Finding of the Court:
       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 498A.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Judgment

Core Issue: Whether courts at the location of the wife's parental home (where she takes shelter after being driven out of the matrimonial home due to cruelty) have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A IPC, even if no overt acts of cruelty occurred there. (!) (!)
Ordinary Jurisdiction Rule: Under Section 177 CrPC, every offence is ordinarily inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. (!)
Exceptions to Ordinary Rule: Section 178 CrPC applies where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or is a continuing offence spanning multiple areas, or consists of several acts in different areas; such cases may be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of those areas. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Further Exception under Section 179 CrPC: An offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose jurisdiction the act was done or the consequence ensued. (!) (!)
Definition of Continuing Offence: A continuing offence is susceptible of continuance, distinguishable from one committed once and for all; it arises from failure to obey a rule, with liability continuing until compliance, constituting a fresh offence each time it persists. (!) (!)
Purpose of Section 498A IPC: Introduced to address cruelty by husband or relatives leading to suicide, grave injury, or harassment for unlawful demands; "cruelty" includes willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury/danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical), or harassment to coerce property demands. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Nature of Cruelty under Section 498A IPC: Cruelty can be physical or mental; includes intentional/malicious infliction of suffering, abusive treatment; mental stress/trauma from being driven from matrimonial home persists even after leaving, with emotional/psychological effects continuing at parental home despite no new overt physical acts. (!)
Consequences of Cruelty Confer Jurisdiction: Mental trauma and psychological distress from cruelty (physical or verbal) at matrimonial home continue at parental home, amounting to consequences of the offence under Section 179 CrPC; such effects endanger mental well-being and qualify as cruelty under Section 498A IPC at the shelter location. (!) (!)
Holding on Jurisdiction: Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter (after leaving/driven away from matrimonial home due to cruelty by husband/relatives) have jurisdiction,

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.

1. “Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members”. This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals.

2. The opinions of this Court on the aforesaid question being sharply divided, the present reference to a larger Bench has been made for consideration of the question indicated hereinabove.

3. In

(i) Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100.

(ii) Ramesh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 3 SCC 507.

(iii) Manish Ratan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2007) 1 SCC 262.

(iv) Amarendu Jyoti and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2014) 12 SCC 362.

a view has been taken that if on account of cruelty committed to a wife in a matrimonial home she takes shelter in the parental home and if no specific act of commission of cruelty in the parental home can be attributed to the husband or his relatives, the initiation of proceedings under Section 498A in the courts having jurisdiction in the area where the parental home is situated will not be permissible. The core fact that would be required to be noted in the above cases is that there were no allegations made on behalf of the aggrieved wife that any overt act of cruelty or harassment had been caused to her at the parental home after she had left the matrimonial home. It is in these circumstances that the view had been expressed in the above cases that the offence of cruelty having been committed in the matrimonial home the same does not amount to a continuing offence committed in the parental home to which place the aggrieved wife may have later shifted.

4. In Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997) 5 SCC 30; Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another (2011) 11 SCC 301 and State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal & Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 126 a seemingly different view has been taken. However, the said view may appear to be based in the particular facts of each of the cases in question. For instance, in Sujata Mukherjee (Supra) there was a specific allegation that the husband, after committing acts of cruelty in the matrimonial home, had also gone to the parental house of the wife where she had taken shelter and had assaulted her there. On the said facts this court in Sujata Mukherjee (Supra) held that the offence is a continuing offence under Section 178 (c) of the Cr.P.C. In Sunita Kumari Kashyap (Supra), there was an allegation that the wife was ill-treated by her husband who left her at her parental home and further that the husband had not made any enquiries about her thereafter. There was a further allegation that even when the wife had tried to contact the husband, he had not responded. In the said facts, this court took the view that the consequences of the offence under Section 498A have occurred at the parental home and, therefore, the court at that place would have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in view of Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly in State of M.P. vs. Suresh Kaushal (Supra) as the miscarriage was caused to the wife at Jabalpur, her parental home, on account of cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial home, it was held that the court at the place of the parental home of the wife would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 179 Cr.P.C.

5. The above two views which the learned referring bench had considered while making the present reference, as already noticed, were founded on the peculiar facts of the two sets of cases before the Court. It may be possible to sustain both the views in the light of the facts of the cases in which such view was rendered by this court. What confronts the court in the present case is however different. Whether in a case where cruelty had