Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.PARVATHA RAO
Rajaram Venkatesh - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-21-92
The court quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty to a married woman, holding that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the prosecution was barred by limitation. The court found that the second complaint, which formed the basis of the prosecution, was filed after the first complaint was dismissed as not pressed, and that the second complaint contained vague and baseless allegations. The court also found that the petitioners had not visited the complainant's town within the limitation period and that there was no evidence of continuing cruelty after the complainant left her husband's house.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cruelty to a married woman under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, the wife of the first petitioner, alleged that the petitioners had subjected her to physical and mental torture, demanding dowry and threatening her with divorce and remarriage. The first complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed as not pressed, and a second complaint was filed a few days later, alleging that the first and second petitioners had visited the complainant's town and threatened her. The Magistrate took cognizance of the second complaint and issued summons to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case because the alleged acts of cruelty did not take place within his jurisdiction. The court also found that the prosecution was barred by limitation because the second complaint was filed more than three years after the alleged acts of cruelty occurred. The court further found that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court because it was filed after the first complaint was dismissed and contained vague and baseless allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case because the alleged acts of cruelty did not take place within his jurisdiction. The court relied on the principle that a Magistrate can only take cognizance of an offence if it is committed within his territorial jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the prosecution was barred by limitation because the second complaint was filed more than three years after the alleged acts of cruelty occurred. The court relied on Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a complaint for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years must be filed within three years from the date of the offence. 3. The court held that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court because it was filed after the first complaint was dismissed and contained vague and baseless allegations. The court relied on the principle that the court has inherent power to prevent abuse of its process, and that this power can be exercised by quashing a complaint that is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the IPC for cruelty to a married woman.
( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are respectively accused 1 to 5 in C. C. No. 120 of 1991 on the file of the learned IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and they pray of the quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that the cognizance of the offence itself was barred by time and that the learned Magistrate at Kakinada had no territorial jurisdiction and that the initiation of the Criminal prosecution against the petitioners amounted to abuse of the process of the Court.
( 2 ) THE 2nd petitioner is the father and petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters, of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent married the 1st petitioner. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent were married at Hyderabad on 10-5-1987 and that after the marriage they resided at Hyderabad for a couple of weeks and that about the end of May, 1987 they went to Bombay and resided at plot No. B-17 in Chembur in the house of the 2nd petitioner.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the 2nd respondent that at the time of her marriage, her mother gave Rs. 25,000. 00 cash and also gold ornaments and other silver and house-hold articles worth about Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to the 1st petitioner and that the petitioner were not satisfied with the money and articles given at the time of the marriage and wanted more cash and articles like colour T. V. , V. C. R. and Refrigerator to be brought by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent s father died long back and her mother is aged about 70 years. As the parental family of the 2nd respondent was not in a position to give more money and articles demanded by the petitioners, the petitioners harassed and illtreated the 2nd respondent and beat her and abused her. She even tried to commit suicide. According to her, finally on 16-5-1988 the 1st petitioner with the active co-operation of petitioners 2 to 5, pushed her away from their house demanding further dowry amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 and since then she had been living in her mother s house at Kakinada. The money and the gold, silver and other article given to the 1st petitioner at the time of the marriage were retained by him and he had not been paying any maintenance to her and hand not taken her back for marital life and continued to demand money even when she was living with her mother at Kakinada. Alleging all these facts, she filed a criminal complaint dated 8-4-1991 before the IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kakinada through her advocate Sir T. V. Ramana and the said complaint was numbered as C. C. (Sr. No. 2290) of 1991. On 12-4-1991 the counsel for the 2nd respondent i. e. , Sri T. V. Ramana endorsed on the said complaint petition" and the complaint was "dismissed since not pressed" by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the 2nd respondent through the same advocate Sr. T. V. Ramana filed on 19-4-1991 a second complaint dated 18-4-1991 before the IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, kakinada more or less alleging the same facts as in the first complaint dated 8-4-1991 and in addition stated that in January, 1991 the 1st and 2nd petitioners came to the house of the 2nd respondent and threatened her and her mother to face consequences like divorce and second marriage by the 1st petitioner if they did not pay the amount demanded by them, and that thereupon the 2nd respondent and her mother gave a Police report on 4-2-1991 to the Station House Officer of the II town Police Station, Kakinada, and that the police did not take any action. No mention was made therein of the 1st complaint dated 8-4-1991.
( 4 ) ON 19-4-1991 the learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kakinada under S. 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. for investigation. The police registered Crime No. 43 of 1991 under S. 498-A I. P. C. and investigated and filed the charge sheet dated 11-7-1991 under S. 498-A read with S. 34, I. P. C. read with S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate took the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
