Court: Jharkhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE D.K. Sinha
Amit Kumar Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr On 11 July 2011
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 177, 178 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Territorial Jurisdiction — Cruelty, dowry demand — No part of occurrence as alleged took place within territorial jurisdiction of Latehar for institution of case — Prosecution of petitioner on basis of FIR which was lodged at Chandwa was liable to be quashed — FIR lodged against petitioner as also criminal proceedings arising out of such case quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. Both the petitions are taken up together arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 363 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the common cause of action against the petitioners brought about by the informant O.P. No. 2-Ram Nath Gupta.
2. The common issue in both the petitions is for quashment of the common First Information Report including the entire criminal proceeding of the petitioners, now pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.
3. The law was set in motion on the written report presented by the informant-Opposite Party No. 2 before the Officer-in-Charge of Chandwa Police Station, Latehar narrating that he had married his daughter Priyanka Gupta with the petitioner Amit Kumar Gupta of village Dankinganj, P.S. Katra within the District of Mirjapur (U.P.) and after the marriage his daughter accompanied her husband to Mumbai where his son-in-law Amit Kumar Gupta was working at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Anusiki Nagar but soon thereafter it was alleged that his son-in-law started extending torture to her in various ways for dowry. The conduct of her husband was apprised by his daughter Priyaka Gupta and pursuant to her repeated appeals, he visited Mumbai on 8.4.2006 but his son-in-law refused to meet him and it was alleged that in his presence itself the petitioner-husband Amit Kumar Gupta threatened to commit murder of Priyanka lest the informant would deliver a sum of Rs. two lakh in cash being the dowry. He tried to pacify the matter but of no avail. His other relations also came to Mumbai and tried to bring the normalcy in the family but the petitioner husband reiterated his demand in their presence also and sensing the gravity of situation he returned back to his village home Chandwa (Latehar) taking back his daughter Priyanka with him. After few days, the father of his son-in-law Amaresh Chand Gupta and his mother Shiva Devi telephoned him at Chandwa to return his daughter Priyanka with Rs. 2 lakh so that she could be accepted in their family with dignity. Pursuant to such call, the informant went to Mirjapur and contacted his brother-in-law Ganesh Prasad Gupta, who had acted as middle man in arranging the marriage and both went to the matrimonial home of Priyanka. The informant explained sequence of events before the petitioner father-in- law and the mother-in-law that he had already spent according to his commitment and capacity yet he assured to fulfil part of their demand but they were consistent in their demand of Rs. 2 lakh in cash. He attempted to convene a panchayati on this issue with the assistance of common friends and relations but his Samdhi Amaresh Chand Gupta, son-in-law Amit Kumar Gupta, second son Deepak Kumar and his wife Shiva Devi refused to budge from their stand. The informant further alleged that his daughter went into mental depression on account of sufferings caused by her husband and in-laws and requested the police to take legal action.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Mahesh Tiwari assisted by other lawyers raised the point of jurisdiction that no part of the occurrence as alleged took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Latehar for institution of the case and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R. which was lodged at Chandwa was liable to be quashed. As per the version of the informant in the written report the entire occurrence as alleged took place either within the jurisdiction of Mumbai or at Mirjapur and the informant levelled omnibus allegations against all the petitioners including the father and mother of the husband, who were not at all beneficiary of the cash to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh alleged to be demanded by son-in-law of the informant. As a matter of fact, the petitioner husband Amit Kumar Gupta consistently expressed his willingness and readiness to take back his wife to Mumbai, to which other petitioners had no objection as they also wanted that Priyanka Gupta should live her husband peacefully but only because of constant interference by her parents in her family affairs she had been compelled to lead a life of seclusion from her in-laws and the husband. As a matter of fact she herself did not want to live with her husband as she had expressed her dissatisfaction to the ugly look of her husband. The petitioners were unaware of the proceeding pending at Latehar. Virtually they were waiting for the return of Priyanka Gupta to her matrimonial home but the local police of Latehar went to Mumbai and apprehended the petitioner-husband Amit Kumar Gupta and his father and both were remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2007.
5. In his counter-affidavit the informant Opposite Party No. 2 herein contented that the F.I.R. which was lodged against the petitioner at Chandwa Police Station within the District of Latehar was still at the investigation stage. The incident of demand of dowry by the petitioners took place at Mumbai and at Chandwa both places which could be evident from the plain reading of the written report presented by him. The accused persons not only demanded dowry from his daughter but also humiliated and extended mental as well as physical torture and then she was driven out from Mumbai. It was purely a continuing offence which continued from Mirjapur to Mumbai and Mumbai to Chandwa in a sequence and the petitioner husband driven her out from his home at Mumbai with her father and finding no way out she returned to Chandwa where the petitioners also started making threatening calls on telephone to pay Rs. two lakh in cash lest his daughter would not be accepted at her matrimonial home and therefore, the continuing offence and its jurisdicticion would be covered under Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His daughter was forced to leave Mumbai and was living at Chandwa at her parental home as a consequence of the criminal act of his son-in-law and therefore, the harassment extended to the daughter was a contining harassment which resulted into her mental dpresssion at Chandwa. The petitioner No. 2 being the father-in-law of the informant joined his hands with the petitioner No. 1 in the act of harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and had made threatening call on phone which was received at Chandwa by the informant O.P. No. 2 whereby demand of dowry was reiterated.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2, I find that the parties have raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the institution of case and thereby criminal proceeding of the petitioners. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the F.I.R. and their criminal proceeding on the ground that no part of the occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Latehar and therefore, the F.I.R. registered by the Chandwa Police Station for its inquiry/trial by the Latehar Court was barred by Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure as the Court at Latehar has no territorial jurisdiction to try such offence which took place in the District of Mirjapur (U.P.) and in Mumbai.
7. In Bhura Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 103, the Apex Court of India held:
“The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law.”
8. The Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in II (2010) DMC 387 (SC)=VI (2010) SLT 7=III (2010) CCR 338 (SC)=2010 STPL (Web) 602 (SC), held in the following manner:
“Reference to the following cases would reveal that the Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English Courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the Court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys, [1977] AC 1, stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the Court’s power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.”
9. From the plain reading of the entire F.I.R., other materials on the record, carbon copy of the case diary as also the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the informant-O.P. No. 2, I find that no part of the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Chandwa Criminal Courts so as to accept registration of the F.I.R. at Chandwa Police Station. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find that depiction of the occurrence at the behest of the informant makes out any continuing offence committed at Chandwa even by threatening call which he received at Chandwa. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is silent with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the police station rather Sections 177 and 178, Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court within the limit of whose the offence may be enquired into and tried by the Court having territorial jurisdiction. It is settled that it was an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. The provisions of Sections 177 and 179, Code of Criminal Procedure did not tremble the powers of any Court to take cognizance of the offence and Section 177 which deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial, speaks:
Every offence shall ordinary be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 place of inquiry or trial—
(a) when it is uncertain knowledge of every local area and offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas then one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into to tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas.
10. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. The F.I.R. has been defined being an information given to the police which sets criminal law in motion. Setting criminal law into motion means requiring Investigating Agency to take steps towards investigation, make some efforts for investigating the crime. It is mandatory on the part of the Incharge Police Officer of the Police Station to forward the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate immediately within whose jurisdiction ordinarily the offence committed. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had got mandatory link with the provision of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that if any F.I.R. is lodged with the police, it must be dispatched to the concerned Magistrate immediately having jurisdiction to try the offence.
11. In the instant case, I find that since no part of the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Chandwa Police Station or within the territorial jurisdiction of the C.J.M. at Chandwa. The institution of F.I.R. at Chandwa Police Station was unwarranted, uncalled for as no cognizance of the offence would be taken allegedly committed beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Chandwa. In a similar situation a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in Amit Sharma v. State and Ors. arising out of Cr. Misc. No. 722 of 2009 by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court, reported in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., in Writ Petition(Cr.) No. 68 of 2008, decided on 14th July, 2008 allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. I find that the instant case is also similarly situated wherein the F.I.R. was entertained by Chandwa Police in spite of knowing the facts that no part of the occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and if at all the F.I.R. or any other petition is filed, the same is liable to be quashed as being barred by jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above the F.I.R. of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2006 lodged against the petitioners as also their criminal proceeding arising out of such case are hereby quashed, however, this order will not come into way or preclude the O.P. No. 2 in filing a fresh case before appropriate Court/police station having jurisdiction to entertain. Both the petitions are allowed.
Petitions allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment