IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.26513 of 2006 1. NOOR HUSSAIN KHAN Son of Akhtar Hussain Khan 2. Akhtar Hussain Khan son of Noor Mohammad 3. Noor Ahmad Khan son of Akhtar Hussain Khan 4. Akbari Begum wife of Akhtar Hussain Khan 5. Rabia daughter of Akhtar Hussain Khan 6. Naseem daughter of Akhtar Hussain Khan 7. Shahnaz daughter of Akhtar Hussain Khan All resident of 64 Broad Street, Police Station- Karaya, Kolkatta-17. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Seema Parveen wife of Noor Hussain Khan, Daughter of Late Md. Akhtar Hussain, Resident of Mohalla- Dilawarpur, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Munger. . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 8/ 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as opposite party no.2. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 23.05.2006, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Complaint Case no. 802 C of 2003, by which the petition of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected. The main point raised by the petitioners is that Munger Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case, even assuming the entire allegations to be true, as all occurrences took place within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Court,. The Complainant Sheema Praveen filed complaint case no. 802 C of 2003 under Sections 498 A, 323, 307, 313 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. The complainant stated that she was married with petitioner no.1 Noor Hussain, on 24.09.2002, and after marriage, complainant - 2 - lived at her Sasural in Kolkata. Soon thereafter, the petitioners and other family members began to assault and torture her for non- fulfillment of demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle as well as cash of Rs. 50,000/-. On account of assault, her pregnancy got terminated. On 26.05.2003, the accused persons caught her and began to press her neck with intention to kill. However, she managed to flee to her brother’s place in Kolkata and there she traveled to paternal house at Munger by train. She narrated the incident to her mother as well as to her brothers and others. The complainant’s brother pacified and advised her to remain calm for some time and assured that he would try to explain the things to her in-laws. After some time, the complainant’s brother along with others went to her Sasural on 24.08.2003, but the accused persons did not relent and were insistent on their demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no cause of occurrence took place within the territory of Munger, and as such the order rejecting their discharge petition dated 23.05.2006 and the criminal prosecution at Munger is bad-in-law. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, Bhura Ram and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2008(3) PLJR page 367 SC, and Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a criminal case can be instituted only where the whole - 3 - or part of the occurrence took place. He further submits even if the complainant is forced to leave her matrimonial house on account of torture by her in-laws, the same would not be deemed to be continuing even at the place of her father, so as to confer territorial jurisdiction there. Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that the accused persons tortured the complainant at Kolkata for demand of dowry. The assault and torture resulted in miscarriage and abortion. The complainant fearing threat to her life, left Kolkata for her paternal home in the district of Munger. He states that the mental and physical harassment, which she suffered at Kolkata continued even at Munger. He further submits that Section 178(c) of Cr.P.C. states that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area than one, a case can be filed within territorial jurisdiction of any of such areas. As per Section 179 of Cr.P.C. a case can be tried even within an area where consequence of offence ensues. In support of his submission learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon decisions reported in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and another reported in 2002 (1) Cri. L. J. 217, and in case of Jagdish and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 1998 (1) Cri. L. J. 554. He has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas reported in 1999 (3) Cri. L. J. 3479. Heard counsel for the parties. The issue in this case is - 4 - whether any occurrence took place in the District of Munger or whether the consequences of the offences ensued in the District of Munger. Let us analyze the issue in light of judgments referred by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In case of Jagdish and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (Supra), the girl was compelled to leave her Sasural and came to her paternal house due to repeated torture for dowry. Even while she was living at her parents’ house, the accused insisted for demand of dowry. The learned single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan was of the view that an offence under Section 498 A of I.P.C. is a continuing offence. The learned Judge further observed that if a girl is forced to come to her paternal house due to repeated torture leaving her matrimonial home, she would have option to file case either at her matrimonial home or at both the places, as the offences would be a continuing offence. The case of Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas reported in 1999 (3) Cri. L. J. 3479 does not specifically deal with the issue of territorial jurisdiction but is an authority on the issue of barred of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C and extension under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. It would appear from the prosecution case that the complainant-opposite party no.-2 was subjected to torture in Kolkata. It is not in dispute that no demand or torture was meted to her in the District of Munger. The main submissions of the opposite party no.2 is that the mental and physical harassment which the complainant suffered in the District of Kolkata had its continuing effect in Munger. - 5 - The torture had its bearing on physical and mental state of affair even at her patent’s place in district of Munger. Thus, according to opposite party no.-2 consequences of the torture at Kolkata had ensuing effect in the District of Munger also. In case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) the complainant had filed complaint under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. at her parents place in Chennai, although all allegation of torture for dowry was leveled at Nagercoil, her matrimonial house, where she lived after marriage. The High Court held that the offence is a continuing offence and as such the complaint filed by her at her paternal home would also have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court negatived the contention and held that offences of torture and cruelty relating to dowry is not a continuing offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that as all torture was perpetrated at her matrimonial home at Nagercoil and no part of offence was committed at Chennai, the Chennai had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and deal with the matter. The judgment in case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) was followed in the case of Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262 and Bhura Ram & others Vs. State of Rajastahan & others reported in 2008(3) PLJR SC 367. In the case of Manish Ratan (Supra), the wife lodged F.I.R. under Section 498 A of I.P.C. at Datia that her husband and in-laws ill-treated her at her matrimonial home at Jabalpur, as such she had to leave her matrimonial home and was forced to live with her parents at - 6 - Datia M.P. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia took cognizance under Section 498 A of I.P.C. against the appellant Manish Ratan and others. Manish Ratan then filed revision in High Court, which dismissed it holding that the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of torture by her in-laws, as such same amounted to mental cruelty and harassment, which continued even at her father’s place at Datia. The High Court, thus, held that in view of Section 177 and 178 (c) of Cr.P.C., the case can be tried even at the place of her father at Datia. The matter was taken to Hon’ble Apex Court by Manish Ratan in appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that no cause of occurrence took place at the father’s place of the girl at Datia, as such the Datia Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the High Court erred in taking the view that as the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of torture by her in-laws, it amounted to mental cruelty and harassment, which continued even at the place of her father at Datia. The Hon’ble Apex Court directed for transfer of the application from Datia Court to Jabalpur Court in exercise of power under Section 142 of the Constitution of India. In case of Bhura Ram and Others (Supra), again the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that as no part of offence took place at the father’s house of the complainant, no case under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. could be entertained at her parent’s place in view of Section 177 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the contention of the opposite party no.-2 that the offence being a continuing offence, the complaint filed at her father’s - 7 - place in Munger would have territorial jurisdiction is bereft of any merit. Furthermore, no consequence of the offence ensued in the District of Munger, as even miscarriage took place in Kolkata and not in district of Munger. There is no allegation that she suffered any physical disability, as a direct effect of assault of torture at Kolkata. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and another reported in 2002 (1) Cri. L. J. 217 due to beating and torture meted to the wife at her nuptial home in Indore while in family way, she suffered miscarriage at her father’s place in Jabalpur. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that case can be tried at her father’s place at Jabalpur, as consequence of offence ensued there also. The case of Suresh Kausahl (Supra) would not be applicable in the instant case, as it is an admitted position that both torture and abortion took place in the District of Kolkata and not at her matrimonial home in the District of Munger. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find that any part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Munger or any consequences of offence ensued there. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another, Bhura Ram and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another, and Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Another has held that offence under Section 498 A of I.P.C. cannot be termed as a continuing offence, so as to confer - 8 - jurisdiction to a court within whose jurisdiction no part of the offence was committed. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2006, rejecting the petition of discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint case no. 802 C of 2003 filed in the District of Munger is without jurisdiction, being in violation of provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. and is accordingly quashed. However, the quashing of the criminal prosecution will not come in the way of opposite party no.2 in preferring any complaint within the District of Kolkata where offence was committed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)