Honble KHAN, J.–Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). Since the persons arrayed as accused in the case were not summoned by the learned Magistrate as he had dismissed petitioners complaint U/s. 203 Cr.P.C. it was not considered necessary to issue notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

(3). The relevant facts are that Kamlesh, the daughter of Ramesh Chand, complainant-petitioner, was married to Ram Babu, respondent No.5, R/o. Faridabad, Haryana, on 12.7.89. It was alleged that her husband and other in-laws harassed and treated Smt. Kamlesh with cruelty for demand of dowry and they turned her out in the year 1991 after giving her a beating. Kamlesh was got examined on 6.10.91 by the complainant-petitioner at Dholpur. It was further alleged that Kamlesh gave birth to a child also at Dholpur. Based on these facts the petitioner had filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate at Dholpur. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed such complaint u/S.203 Cr.P.C. and the dismissal order was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in revision.

(4). Mr. K.N. Srimal, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vanka Radhamanohari vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy & Ors. (1) for the proposition that the bar, created U/s. 468 Cr.P.C., does not stand attracted to the offences U/s. 494 and/or 498-A maxim vigilantibus was in-applicable to offences relating to cruelty on women in matrimonial cases. The learned counsel further submitted that since the consequences of the harassment and cruel behaviour, exhibited by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against Smt. Kamlesh, had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Dholpur, he was competent to taken cognizance of such offences.

(5). It is well settled position of law that if the complaint/F.I.R. discloses the commission of some offences, it should not be dismissed in its inception. Offences particularly involving cruelty towards the women in matrimonial relations, should be viewed at with sensitivity and sensibility. It is to be kept in mind that more often than girls go to live with their husbands at a place different from that where they are married by their parents. If at the place of their residence with their husbands they are harassed and meted with cruel behaviour by their husbands or his relations and the consequences of their acts, constituting offences, ensue within the jurisdiction of a different court, such different Court is legally entitled to take cognizance of such offences. Offence U/s. 494 IPC has been considered to be a continuing offence and since the cruelty meted out to a married woman entails consequences which follow her at another place also, such cases should not be thrown out in their very inception until and unless the accusation made against the accused persons, prima facie, appear to be inherently, improbable or against normal human conduct and behaviour.

(6). In the present case both the courts below have taken the view that since Kamlesh had been residing at Faridabad in the State of Haryana and was allegedly beaten there, the court of the Magistrate at Dholpur had no jurisdiction. It appears to have escape their view that though Kamlesh was impregnated in Faridabad, yet the consequences of her impregnation ensued in Dholpur. That apart Kamlesh was allegedly beaten in Harayana but she was examined on 6.10.91 in Dholpur. The con- sequences of her beating should not be considered to have come to an end at the very moment the beating was stopped viewed thus it cannot be said that the courts in the District of Dholpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Similarly since the learned court below failed to take note of the continued consequences of the acts, done by the proposed accused, they considered that complaint was ba- rred by the provisions U/s. 468 Cr.P.C. In that behalf the case relied upon by Mr. Srimal makes a good guide for the courts below. It is in that view of the mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document