Sing ‘ $.e %each W A/ Cw BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ]C.G.[ w.P. No. 4%03 /2oo4 Single Bench other Matter JAMPALA ISHWAR 'PRASAD aged about 32 years S/o. Madan Mohan R/o. Ramdas Nagar Tikarap ara, Bilaspur (C . G .) 2. JAMPALA MADAN MOHAN aged about 58 years S/o. J.S. Raidu R/o. Ramdas Nagar Tikarapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) JAMPALA SAI KRISHNA aged about 35 years S/o. Madan Mohan R/o. Ramdas Nagar Tikrapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS : l. STATE OF ANDHARA—PRADESH Through — Principal -Secretary Department of Home Affairs Govt. of Andhra-Pradesh HYDERABAD (A.P.) STATE STATION HOUSE OFFICER Through : Sub—Inspector of Police L 8L O Machavaram Police Station Vijaywada City (Andhra —Pradesh) s _/— %% NB) 1 2l/ HON‘BLE FOURTH METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM-MAHILA— MAGISTRATE Vij aywada (Andhra—Pradesh) SMT. JAMPALA SIRISHA @ DUGGIRALA SIRISHA aged about 24 years W/o. Jampala Eswaro Prasad and D/ o. Duggirala Alnarendra Babu, R/o. F-l, Vvaibhav Apartment Maruthi—Nagar Vijaywada—4 (A.P.) Another address for service of notice C/o. Sri V.Srinivasa Raju Sri U.S. Kurnar Sri D. Krishna Advocate Governo-Pet, Vij aywada 520002 (A.P.) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through—Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Secretariat D . K. S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2262 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As given in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As given in the cause title. W P HIéH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT &ILASPU£2 (CHHATTISGARH) W Wrif Pe?i+ion No.460g3 0f 2004 Jampala Ishwar Pmsad & ofhers - Versus - Sfafe of Andhra Pradesh & o‘rhers (Passed on 2¢—’*w( Decembery 2004) LC. Bhadcc, J. 1. The pefi’n'oners have preferred *hvis wri’r pe‘rifion for quashmenf of FIR. No.68/O4, Pdice STa‘rion: Machavamm, bisw‘rim‘ Vijayawada, Sfa'l‘e of Andhm Pradesh for ‘rhe commission of ‘?he offence under Secfians 498—A and 420 of fhe I.P.C. e 3: have heard learned counsel for The pefi‘iioner on The ques'fion of aamission of This wri? peTi‘rion. 3rie‘f fac’rs Heading 1’0 filiag of This wrif pefifion, as seTou‘r in The wri‘r peTi‘rion, are fha‘r respondenf No.4 herein was married +0 The pe‘ii’rioner Na‘i on 21-11-2002 a? Vijayawada, Sfafe of Andhra Pradesh and afier sfaying one day a‘i Vijayawada, file pe‘iii‘ioner No.1 and respondem‘ No.4 came 1’0 giiaspur. On 440—2003 respondenf No.4 ief‘r her mafrimoniai home wi‘i‘h her broiher, uncie and aunfy and 'ihereaffer she-did noT refurn. ‘i'herefore, 'ihe pefii‘ioner No.1 herein fiied a peii‘iion under Seciion 9 ’of ‘fhe Hindu Marriage Act 1995 on 2841—2003 for resii'l'u'iion of ochjugai righ‘isi which came +o be regis‘rered as C5. Present— Shr-i V. 6‘ Tamaskar, Advocafa: For ‘rhe pefif‘ioners. 5min Fouzia Mjrza, Pane! Lawyer: For fhe STm‘e/respondenf @ QI No.206-A/2004. No‘rice of '%'he same was sen-r f0 respondem No.4. The Courf asked responden'r No.4 To appear before The Cour‘r for The purpose of reconciliafion. However, counsel for responden‘f No.4 fook fime for appearance of respondem' No.4. However, iiq fhe mean‘rime, on 18—11-2004 flue pe’rifioners were arres’red by The police of S‘l’afle of Andhm Prodesh. They “rook fhem 1‘0 Vijayawada from There fhey secured ‘fhe bail. . FurTher case of The peTiTioners is ThaT as The peTiTioner No.1 sTayed wi‘rh responden‘r No.4 a? Vijayawada only for one day Le. 21—11-2002 and Thereaffer complaim‘ was made by respondenf No.4 on 17—2—2004 jusf offer one year and Two months, as such respondenf No.3 Le. 4*l‘ Mefropolifan Magisfrafe cum Mahila Magisfrafei Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdicfion To lake cognizance of The offence. . Learned counsel for The peTiTioners submiTTed ThaT The peTiTioners wem‘ fo Vijayawada only once af flne Time of marriage, Thereaf'fer The pe‘rifioner No.1 s‘l‘ayed only for one day wifh respondenf No.4 a‘l‘ Vijayawada and af no fime fhey have visifed Vijayawada, f’nerefor‘e, The Cour? of Vijayawada has no jurisdicfion +0 fake cognizance of fhe offence under Secfions 498-A and 420 of The I.P.C.. Relying on The decision of The Hon'ble Apex CourT in The maTTer of Y. ABRAHAM AJITH AND OTEHRS V. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANQTHER reporTed in (2604) o SCC 100, learned counsel argued ThaT since no parf of alleged offence was commiTT’ed aT Vijayawada, as such fhe CourT aT Vijayawada has no jurisdicTion To Take cognizance of The ofrenee I‘!‘ agains‘l’ The peTiTioners. . Having heard learned counsel for The peTiTioners, I have perused The copy of The complainT Annexure-P/Z filed wiTh This wriT peTiTion. In This connecTion, relevanT provisions of The Code of Criminal Procedure are SecTions 177 and 178. SecTion 177 of The Cr.P.C. envisages ThaT ‘every offence shall ordinarily be inquired inTo and Tried by a CourT s wiThin whose IocaH jurisdicTion if was commif‘red’ wheraas, SecTion 178 of fhe Cr.P.C. envisages Thu? ‘(u) When i’r is uncerfain in which of several iocal aheas an offence was commi'H‘ed, or (b) where ah offence is commif‘i'ed par‘Hy in one {ecu} area and parfly in anofher, 0r (c) where an a;£.£ience is a Continuing one, and con‘rinues +0 be commi‘i‘red in more iocai areas 'ihan one, or (d) where if comsis‘is of several ac+s done in differeni’ iocai areas.’ Perusai o? The complain? fiied by responden‘r No.4 before fhe 4+h Mefr‘opoiifan Magisfr'afe, Vijayawada discloses fhaf a‘i‘ The fime of marriage fhe parenfs of fhe complainan‘i’ had given Rs.4,00,000/- f0 fhe accused Nos. 1 To 3. The paren‘rs of fhe complainanf had also given 2 acres of agricul‘fuml land a? The ’rime of marriage as demanded by fhe accused. On payment accused Nos. 1 To 3 expressed fheir' sa‘risfacfion regarding payment The accused persons also made a demand f0 fhe paren'fs of The complainanf 1‘0 perform fhe marriage in a grand manner wifh huge expenses. Accordingly, fhe fa’rher of respondenf No.4 herein borrowed amounfs, spenf Rs.2,00IOOO/- and me? all exorbh‘an’r demands of The accused Nos. 1 To 3, besides ThaT The accused was given jewellery of gold worTh Rs.1,00,000/— and also given Sarees worTh of Rs.70,000/—. . ET has furTher been menTioned ThaT aT Bilaspur accused No.1 sTarTed harassing The compiainanT for bringing more dowry of Rs‘Z lakhs from h‘e’r' parenTs and accused Nos. 2 di 3 were co—operaTing accused No.1 for illegal demands The accused No.1 in order To fulfill his illegal demand of dowry always used To beaT her black and blue and accused Nos. 2 and 3 always used To abuse The complainanT for each and everyThing. The complainanT was subjected To severe menTai and physical TorTure in The hands of accused. in The monTh of January, 2003 accused senT The complainanT To her parenTs house forcibly To bring Rs.2,06,000/-. When The faTher of The compiainanT expressed his inabili’ryi accused No.1 openly said “ThaT The amounT of Rs.2,00,000/- is necessary for his personal expendiTure and he will noT allow respondenT No.4 herein @ wifhoui‘ paymen‘r of fhe said amount In helpless condi’rion respondenf No.4 borrowed an amoun'r of Rs.2,00,000/—. In fhe mon‘rh of June, 2003 respondem‘ No.4 and her parems paid Tho? amounf To ‘rhe accused No.1. Buf, even fhereaffer fhere was no change On 3—10-2003, fhe accused No.1 again asked fhe compiainan‘r To sign on fhe divorce papers and whiTe papers ‘iha‘f “rhe compiainan‘r has no objecfion abou'i second marriage of accused No.1. When "the compiainan‘r refused To sign on The biank papers, accused No.1 bea‘ren The compiainam‘ and she was faken for fre‘a‘imem‘ To Vijayawada where accused No.2 Teiephoned. Thereaffer, fa‘iher of fhe respondenf No.4 approached ciose reiafive of accused No.2 and caiied him 1‘0 Vijayawada. On 17—10—2003, accused came To Vijayawada To finally demand The dowry amounT and parenTs of The complainanT wiTh a hope ThaT The faTe of The compiainanT wiil be changed if They comply wiTh Their demand, borrowed amounTs from Their near and dear ones, and paid an amounT of Rs.1,00,000/— To The accused. On 18—10-2003 in The presence of well—wishers of boTh The families, The accused No.1 and complainanT execuTed a memorandum of agreement The well-wishers of accused No.1 and complainanT advised The parenTs of boTh The parTies To esTablish separaTe family aT Vijayawada, ThereafTer, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had sTayed in The parenTal house of The complainanT for 6 days aT Vijayawada.‘ Even during Their sTay aT Vijayawada, accused No.1 used To pickup peTTy quarrel for peTTy Things‘ ThereafTer, again accused Nos. 1 and 2 puT anoTher condiTion' To The parenTs of The complainanT To pay Rs.1,00,000/-'as addiTional dowry To puT up family and furTher ThreaTened ThaT They will keep on beaTing. ., In para—7 of The complainT iT has been menTioned ThaT The cause of acTion arose on 21-11-2002 aT Vijayawada, on 3-10-2003 accused No.1 beaT The complainanT and on 18-10—2003 aT Vijayawada accused No.1 and complainanT arrived aT noTarized agreemenT and on The same day all The accused again demanded The amounT of dowry, where The accused Barve \?\ (Mi/i; No.1 and complainanf hs‘r resided, where fhe accused harassed “the complainanf for dowry a‘r Vijayawada wifhin limifs of Machavaram Police Sfa‘rion. 9. Therefore, aHegafions in fhe complain‘r show ThaT demand of dowry and harassmen‘r were aHeged f0 have been Taken place a‘r bofh 'rhe places Le. Bilaspur and Vijayawada. As per Explana'lion (b) To Secfion 498~A of The IP‘C. 'cruelfy means harassmenf of fhe woman where such harassmen‘r is wi’rh a view +0 coercing her or any person relaTed To her fo meef any unlawful demand for any proper‘ry or valuable securh‘y or is on accoum’ of failure by her or any person relaTed To her To meeT such demand.’ Therefore, The allega‘iions in The complainT disclose ThaT parT of The offence was also‘commi‘h‘ed aTyl/i‘jayawadal Therefore, in view of The provisions of clause (b) and (d) of SecTion 178 of The Cr.P.C. prima facie aT This sTage in view of allegaTions in The complainT iT cannoT be held ThaT The 4*” MeTropoliTan MagisTraTe, Vijayawada has no jurisdicTion To Try The case. Moreover, afTer cleTail evidence of The parTies, The Trial CourT will be able To Take decision abouT jurisdicTion. 10. In view of The above facTs, case law ciTed by learned counsel for The peTiTioner is of no help To The peTiTioners for The reason ThaT in ThaT case There were no allegaTions in The complainT ThaT any parT of The offence was commiTTed aT Chennai, The Hon'ble Apex CourT held ThaT nowp‘arT of The offence was commiTTed aT Chennai, Therefore, The Criminal CourT aT Chennai could noT have Tried The case. 11. In view of The foregoing discussion, I am of The opinion ThaT This wriT peTiTion has no subsTance, same is liable To be dismissed and iT is accordingly dismissed. No cosTs. STE/- L.C.BHADQQ Judge M’w , é"\ I’AAE‘ 7