SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 34

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. C. WAS
GURMEET SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Cri. Revn. 281 Of 2005
Decided On : 01/04/2006

Advocates Appeared:
AJAY KAKANI, Jai Singh, Vivek Singh

The continuance of the offence of cruelty and harassment provides the trial court with jurisdiction to try the alleged offence, despite the complainant residing in a different location at the time of lodging the FIR.

Headnote:

S. 177 Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - S. 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Penal Code - The court held that the alleged offence of cruelty and harassment as defined in S. 498-A of the Penal Code was committed in continuance even before the date of lodging the FIR in the Police Station. The complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home on account of failure to fulfill the demand of dowry made by the applicant husband and her-in-laws'. She was forced to leave her matrimonial home and thereafter she is residing at Indore with her uncle. Thus, according to him the mental harassment is in continuance, as her husband and other relations are not taking care of her and child. The court further held that on account of continuance of the offence, the Trial magistrate has the jurisdiction to try the alleged offence and the impugned order is rightly passed by the Trial Magistrate.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged cruelty, harassment, and demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws at Asansol, leading to her leaving the matrimonial home and residing at Indore. The trial court rejected the application challenging its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the revision before the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the alleged offence of cruelty and harassment was in continuance, and thus the trial court had jurisdiction to try the alleged offence.

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction under S. 177 of the Cr. P. C. in relation to the alleged offences under S. 498-A, 406, and 506 of the Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuance of the offence of cruelty and harassment provided the trial court with jurisdiction to try the alleged offence, despite the complainant residing in a different location at the time of lodging the FIR.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate was quashed, directing the trial court to return the challan papers to the concerned Police for filing it before the competent Criminal Court.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 2-3-2005, passed by Judicial magistrate First Class, Indore in Cri. Case no. 864 of 2004, whereby the application filed by applicant accused under S. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected, hence applicant preferred this revision before this Court.

( 2 ) FACTS of the prosecution case in short are that complainant Ramnik Kaur who is resident of Ranchi (Jharkhand) was married to the applicant on 28-5-2001. The marriage of Ramnik Kaur was solemnized with applicant Gurmeet Singh on 28-5-2001 at patna. The applicant is permanent resident of S. P. Mukherjee Road, Murgasal, Asansole, district Vardhaman (W. B. ). After the marriage she had started living with her husband, mother-in-law Surjeet Kaur, sister in law Ravindra Kaur and Balvinder Kaur at asansole. She had lodged a first information report at Mahila Police Station, Indore on 2-8-2004 in which it has been alleged that just from the second day of the marriage her husband Gurmeet Singh, her mother-in-law Surjeet Kaur, sister-in-law ravindra Kaur and Bamnder Kaur started treated her with cruelty and demanded a santro Car and Rs. 50,000/ -. They have started beating the complainant and subjected to her with cruelty. In the meanwhile, complainant become pregnant. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws including her husband told her that she should go to her parental home for delivery, as they are not in a position to bear the expenses. The applicant husband Gurmeet Singh also disputes the legitimacy of the child in womb. She was sent to her parental home. She gave birth to a child. Even after intimation her husband and-in-laws did not take care of her and none of them have come to see her at Indore.

( 3 ) THE complainant and her mother went to the matrimonial house along with the relatives and tried to pacify the matter. But the applicant husband, and in-laws again started beating the complainant and demanded a Santro Car and cash amount. Her mother came there and she was sent back to her parental house in October, 2003. Ever since then she is residing at Indore. The applicant husband and her in-laws did not take care of her and child. In the meantime her mother also died.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the FIR Lodged by complainant, an offence under Ss. 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Penal Code has been registered at Police Station (Mahila Thana)Indore against the applicant husband. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, indore which was registered as Cri Case No. 864 of 2004.

( 5 ) DURING trial, an application under S. 177 of the Cr. P. C. was filed before the Trial court stating that the alleged offence has been committed only at Asansol (WB) and no part of it has been committed at Indore. Therefore Court at Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present offence against the applicant.

( 6 ) THE trial Magistrate after hearing arguments of both the sides, rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 2-3-2005. It is this order which is impugned in this revision.

( 7 ) LEARNED Sr. Advocate Shri Jaisingh with Shri Vivek Singh advocate has submitted that the act of cruelty as alleged by complainant has been committed only at Asonsol (WB) and not at Indore. There is not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituing an offence much less at Indore in the FIR and in the statement recorded by Police under S. 161 of Cr. P. C. That being so, the logic of S. 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied. He placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in the matter of y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, chennai, AIR 2004 SC 4286 : (2004 Cri LJ 4186 ).

( 8 ) THE learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was earlier resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand ). The marriage was solemnized at Patna (Bihar) and after the marriage she had started living with her husband an











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top