CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 20, 2011 Pankaj Jain and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the FIR No.480, dated 19.9.2009, registered at Police Station Gurgaon City, District Gurgaon, Haryana, on the ground that this FIR has been lodged to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. Plea further is that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, where this case is in progress, would have no territorial jurisdiction to try this case, where he has framed charges under Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioner No.1 married complainant-respondent No.3 on 11.12.2008 at Delhi as per Hindu rites. Petitioner No.1 thereafter and the complainant CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: went for their honeymoon to Singapore and Malaysia. They had visited Nainital and Jim Corbett Park. The couple is stated to have stayed at Delhi in the matrimonial house. It is alleged that after about a month of the marriage, the complainant started behaving in an irrational and abnormal manner. Due to this, incompatibility, the complainant on her own accord left the matrimonial home on 27.6.2009 to live with her parents at Gurgaon. While leaving the matrimonial home, the complainant allegedly took sets of keys of the cupboards in her room at the matrimonial home at Delhi and has not returned thereafter. The complainant has lodged the complaint at City Police Station Gurgaon against various members of the family of the petitioners. The petitioners would allege that this has been done in a motivated manner to rope in all their family members. It is further stated that this complaint is made with oblique and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners. On the basis of this complaint, FIR has been registered promptly, which is stated to be in violation of the departmental guidelines reproduced in the petition. The police thereafter is alleged to have acted with super speed and in a hot haste, arrested all accused, including the petitioners and two women. Five of the arrested persons were released at 8.30 P.M. but petitioner No.1 continued to be kept under arrest. The police in this case has finally presented a challan on 10.2.2010. On the CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: basis of the challan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, has further proceeded in this case. As per the petitioners, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, absolutely lacks in territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and to proceed with the case. The petitioners raised a plea and have challenged the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The counsel for the complainant, however, pleaded that offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC are made out against the petitioners and offence of cruelty, being a continuous offence, would be triable by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon in view of the law laid down in Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 293. It is alleged that Chief Judicial Magistrate has ignored the plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners deliberately. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR on the ground that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with case. In support, the counsel has placed reliance on Y.Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100, Y.A.Ajit Vs. Sofana Ajit, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 429 and Bhura Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 103. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar's case (supra), has held that offence of cruelty is a continuing offence. Sections 177 to 186 Cr.P.C. deal with the venue and place of trial. Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinary be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This Section reiterates the well established common law rules that a proper and ordinary venue of trial of a crime is an area of jurisdiction in which the facts occur and which are alleged to constitute the crime. There are however, several exceptions to this general rule and these can be noticed from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, Section 178 of the Code, while making a provision for place of enquiry or trial, provides that when it is uncertain in which of several local area, an offence was committed or where it is partly committed in one local area or partly in another or where the offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, then it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 177 of the Code uses a word `ordinarily'. This would indicate that provision is a general one and must be read subject to other special provisions contained in the Code. The exceptions implied by word “ordinarily” need not CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: be limited to those specially provided for by law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of the law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court. These exceptions may not have been found in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith (supra) but may appear in the present case. Certain offences are also continuing offences. As is observed in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi, (2001) 4 SCC 350, a continuing offence is one, which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one, which is committed once and for all. This aspect was also examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30. This was also a case where offences under Sections 498A, 506 and 323 IPC were alleged. In this case, it was observed that though the husband of the complainant went to the place where the complainant was residing and had assaulted her. Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, held that Section 178(c) was attracted. Reference can here be made to the law laid down in Gaganpreet Kaur Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh and another, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 394. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of jurisdiction in matrimonial offences. This was a case where the marriage was solemnized at Delhi. Dowry CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }: articles were also entrusted at Delhi. The allegation of maltreatment and torture for demand of dowry also allegedly took place at Delhi but the wife alongwith minor child had come to reside at Chandigarh and had lodged a complaint with Chandigarh Police, demanding back dowry. Chandigarh police transferred the case to Delhi. The wife had then approached this Court and this Court had set-aside the order of Chandigarh police by making reference to the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. by observing that dowry articles are required to be returned to the complainant at a place of her residence. Accordingly, Chandigarh Court, where the wife was residing, was held to have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. This order was upheld by Supreme Court. The ratio in this case is apparently attracted to the facts of the present case. Section 181 Cr.P.C. regulate the place of trial in certain offences. Section 184(4) Cr.P.C. clearly provides that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of property, which is subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. In this case, the petitioner certainly can be required to return or account for the dowry articles at the place where the complainant is residing and, thus, the CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 7 }: residence of the complainant would have relevance for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court to try these offences. In the present complaint, it is alleged that sufficient dowry was given to the petitioners, which included Maruti SX4 A.C car, LCD, A.C., gold ornaments, silver ornaments, Rs.50,000/- as cash, but still the petitioners remained unsatisfied. On 12.12.2008, the family members of the complainant were told that they had cheated the family of the petitioners. As per the allegation, the petitioners had turned the complainant out of the matrimonial home after giving beating. The complainant, after ill treatment, had telephonically called her parents but still the petitioners told her brother that they were not ready to keep her and wanted that the complainant be taken by them. The complainant thereafter had stayed with her parents but the petitioners, on a request made by maternal uncle of the complainant, had taken the complainant from her parental home on 8.4.2009. Thus, the dowry articles would have to be returned to the complainant and, therefore, it can be said that part of cause of action has taken place at the parental house of the complainant. The allegation of cruelty otherwise also would continue to haunt the complainant at her matrimonial home and in this context such offences have been held to be continuing offences. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.37184 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 8 }: There is, thus, no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE