Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 13
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Girdhari Lal Jatana
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 19185 of 1996 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 09, 1997
Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for trial of an offence in a court within whose jurisdiction the act was done or the consequence ensued, even if the act and consequence occur in different jurisdictions.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE TRIED WHEN ACT IS DONE OR CONSEQUENCE ENSUES - SECTION 179 - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 3/4 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 323, 324, 120-B, 498-A - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused of dowry harassment and cruelty, challenged the cognizance taken by the Patna Court, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction and mala fide complaint. The complainant alleged torture, physical and mental, leading to her leaving the matrimonial home and coming to Patna for medical treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Patna Court had jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the act and its consequences were interlinked, with the cruelty leading to the complainant leaving her husband's house and coming to Patna.
Issues: 1. Whether the Patna Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the petitioners for offences allegedly committed in Delhi. 2. Whether the complaint was mala fide and vague, warranting quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for trial of an offence in a court within whose jurisdiction the act was done or the consequence ensued. In this case, the act of cruelty and its consequence, the complainant leaving her matrimonial home, were interlinked, giving the Patna Court jurisdiction. 2. The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, supported by witness testimony, prima facie constituted an offence, and there was no evidence of mala fide or vagueness warranting quashing of the proceedings under Section 482.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' application, upholding the cognizance taken by the Patna Court and refusing to quash the criminal proceedings.
M.Y.Iqbal, J.
1. The petitioners who are nine in numbers have filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.1.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 975(C) of 1995 taking cognizance of an offence under Sec. 323, 324, 120-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The aforesaid complaint case was initiated on the basis of complaint filed on 27.7.1995 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna by opposite party No. 2 who is wife of petitioner No. 9.
2. The undisputed facts are that the elder sister of opposite party No. 2 (complainant) resides with her husband and other family members in Delhi. The negotiation of marriage was initiated and settled by the petitioner and father of complainant and ultimately the marriage was solemnised at Delhi and, thereafter, petitioner No. 9 and the opposite party No. 2 started living their conjugal life as husband and wife.
3. It appears from the complaint petition, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the application that the petitioners started torturing the opposite party No. 2 (Complainant) as a result of which the opposite party No. 2 had to return back to Patna.
4. For better appreciation the allegations made in the complaint petition are re-produced hereinbelow:
The complainant and the accused were consuming and consumating their conjugal life as husband and wife but the complainant was never left with out unwarranted unpleasant comments from the mouth of especially from accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 by saying PATNA WALE HAM LOGO KO THAG DIYAE as such started "revoking" accused No. 1 who under/of the other accused persons started misbehaving, ill treating and torturing the complainant and sometimes started beating the complainant with kick and fists as and when the complainant protested the demand of her ornaments by accused No. 1 who is a gambler who lost most of the ornaments of the complainant presented by her parents The the accused Nos. 8 and 9 the next door neighbour of the complainants elder sister as Bahno were also very much displeased for want of special respect as they were very must instrumental in settlement of the marriage of the complainant as such goaded with the moto of revenge become the frequent visitors of the house of accused Nos. 1 to 7 and started provoking to other accused persons for compelling the complainant to demand Rs. 50, 000 (fifty thousands) only together with Freeze, four bangles of gold and a piece of land at Delhi from her parents to which the complainant always refused with request to consider the poverty of her parents.
That all the accused persons by entering into criminal conspiracy with each other started creating various troubles by disturbing the complainant in providing kerosene oil mixed food as well as stopping the use of daily use household articles like tooth paste, soap, clothing, fooding etc. That accused Nos. 1 to 9 by torturing the complainant started compelling the complainant to demand one Freeze, four bangles of gold together with Rs. 50, 000 (Rupees fifty thousands) only and one piece of land at Delhi for which complainant was brutally assaulted by all the accused persons on her refusal to do act according to their whims and direction.
That the complainant was subjected upto high degree of cruelty and tortured physically as well as mentally which is very much apparent from unstamped letter dated 10.7.1995 addressed by the complainant to her parents which is annexed as Annexure-1 and envelope as Annexure I/A to this complaint petition for vivid picture of the complainants position and her case.
That on 3.8.1995 in the night all the accused persons by entering into criminal conspiracy to each other for fulfilment of their illegal demand for dowry as well as the act of torturing broke the boundary of limitation of torturing when the complainant was subjected to h
