"3. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. p of2010 iES'^-c"'^ 'w.?,^^; APPUCANTS o ,<•' .^>s^rs- .^s^'' -.^^ <>«. v-*'*' ^^y^^^.. %\^A r»^^--"^^^ ^--•"" u ^y Omprakash Soni, S/o Khetmal Soni, aged about 28 years, Khetmal Soni, S/o Krishna Ram Ji Soni, aged about 56 years, Smt. Aima Devi @ Hema Bai, W/o Khetmal Soni, aged about 48 years, Smt. Jyoti Soru, W/o Jagdish Soni, aged about 28 years, All the R/o Near Ogeshwal Building Dantewari Jewelers Godown, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT : State of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S.-MahUa Tharia Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) APPUCATION UNDER SECTrON 482 OF THE^CRIMINAL PROCEDURB CODE. ^5'5:?^S-"?~"*^W' imKE »aMfflK» ©.N^Ihi^K^aKBB aEMa»eanH» SUttea£Oas»fi Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 8nMaasManMtW»i*»Mfc»Ba OcM.P.Vo.WOfWW t-!: ren'noMBRs iffispCTinaBaT OatptsSBaata Soai&Ois. Vwa* State of GhhattisgaA (Am»UcaUenu/8 488 ofthff Gr.y.C.I Aopearaace: Shn Aiaan Keaharwani, counsel f<w•tt»pctitioner. Shri SushU Dubey, Qavt. Advocate for fcc State. OIIDBR L7 (Passed onW.'Dctobw, 2010) 1. By tfais petitioa under Sectioa 482 cxffhc Gr.P.C.; the petittoners taave fxaycd fw quashiag of criaamal prowedixqp ia Cteniaal Gasc No.965/03 pendiag in Itoe Oourt of Jiadadal M^isttate Pirst Oa®, Du^ arisiBg <»ut of Crime No. -36/05, wiicreia the petitioaers a?e alteged to faave been cotmnitted fhe afeace uader SeGtkms 498- A & 406 read wlth Section 34 offhe IPC. 3. Casc of tte pctitioaers is that Pooiiam Soal, wife of ysWsascs No. 1 OmprEitessh alteged tbat she was subjected to crucMy in cwiatx^sm trith demaad ofdinny and on a rqxnt lodged iffl Mahifa PoUcc Thana, Duxg, offeace under Section 498- A icad wltb Section 34 ofIPCwas •^s& ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ffl £:: ;:..: !t ^ '-^, ^ ^-^ ^SSSSi^ -2- icg^stered ag^ast d petittBtaaas. Tb.e coneemed p«&e af Mtdula ThaBa, Dui^ condiroted iawestigatian. aad achaige rtwct has tacen filcd in &e Court ofJudxaal Magisteate Ffast Ctass, Bwtg. 3. Leamed coun^l fer Itoe petitioneis at^med fhat E aio pBrt (rfofifeace is aBeged to have bcea conuaaltted wifhin tenitoriEd j'BB'fadtetioa of tfae Judicial M^isteate Pirst Class, Dm^, the csotwaned Magisteate conU not have taken cognizaace of fhe otfence oa thc basris cSeheayc steet filcd by Malula PoUce Thana, Duq;. He further sirismits fhat the eatire iavestigation condncted-by MattUa PoUcc-Thaaa, Dua^ is wittaout jurtediction, as ia view of fhe ptovteiona coataia^ in Seclaaa 156 (1) of Cr.P.C., the policc of MaMa Police 'Hiaxia, Dvay ooidd itot haye eaquired into flic dteged coimnfasioa of odeace oa Ite report of complainant Poonam Sonl as ffae Ms^istrate itecK'did aot baiw territoriEdjiMMdKitiDn to try the aEfeace. la support of his subnassteiiB, teanaed coiuasd for ftae petttioners placed reUance upon fhe decisfoas i& fhe c^ies ofKmnari ehanritadEM' aad 0»s. Vs. State of Chhattla^prii1 & Deepak AwU te 0».Vs. StateofU.P.akAmr.2. 4. Oa Itoe other hmid, teamed counsel for ttae respoad.eat-State sulxnaitted fhat thcrc is ao fflegalily eifhcr in the mvesti^attaa coaducted by Maltfla P&Uce Thana, Duig nor Ae Juditaial ME^isteate First Ctess, Dui% lacks territorial jurisdictioa to tiy Ihe oflBaice. It is furtiiier subimtted fhat ^ part of offeace was conaaajtted at Dufg aflso, ttie concemed M^istrate does ha»c fhe jurisdlction to tdee cogmzance upon SSms-a cfaargc shect before it by Mafafla PoBcc-TlMiaa, afflegia^ t30<»CRI.L.J.3822 2 2009 CW. L. J. P«3C)477 (A1L-) -3- 'yis%9 ^~^y "•%.- commission of oflfence uader Section 4Q8- A , 406/34 of thc IPG. Leaa-ned counsel for fhe Tespondcals further argucs that afiter '^ ' ' ' complauiaat Poonam was subjected to crueity by fhe petttfoaera at Oeetam she was brEn^bt back to hcr pareatal place at Dui^where sdtc was Bviag and sufifernig agpay. He aiso su'binite that an ammnrt of Rs.50,000/- is aUeged to have bccn paid to Omprakash at Quxf, fherefore, part ofoffence is also afleged to be coamiitted at Duq; and fhcre&re ttie Judlcial M^Ktrate Fast Gtoss, Dwcg h^ tercyDrisd jurisdictton to tiy the ofifence by taking cognfeance upcu fiBng ofcharge sheetby Majhfla Police Thana, Duig. 5. Prom the ctaai%e sheet, it is diva^ed fhat awritten Eepart ^^is todged by the complainant Ftoonam So^ wife ofpetitfoner Mo.l-Ontjprekash, to IIic SupeTmtendent of Pblice, Daitg *m tiie basis ofwfakdh, WR waa registered by Mahfla PoUce Thana, Duig registeiu^ Crime No.36/05 on alteged conmussioa of offence iinder Scctiaa 498- A read wilte Scctioa 34 offhe IPC. Fsova. the aBtegattons contained in the wtittcn ooi&plaiat ofcoinplainant Pooiiaai, it is levcaled tiiat the-afflcgcd-ofifeac«®fcruelty is committed in Itec luatriaioiiial house at Geedaan. I^®iathe casc diaiy -statenicnt of Siat Pooiiam Soni, Siat; Nisha Soni, Maaoj Soni, -Naresh Soiu, Parwg Khaa, Rajndsfa Ayscwsl & PrateaA Dewangaa s3so it is dfaclosed fhat fhe catire aBcgatloas takea as it is, go to ^iow &at i3ae entirc act of cruclty is afflcged to have been c<amnitted ia tiic niatriiaoiiial house at Geedaai. Thoi^h it has been statcd BI the diary stetBmeat of Pooiiam Soni that whatever -was giveu at thc time of marriagc has not been retumcd aad tsas bcen misa^ropriated, tfacre is no spccific stateiaent as to oa which date, where, by •wbovn, Sac various iteins were alleyd-to be given at tte tiaae of msazisye. It bas WS !N^^^ ^s^^^^^-^'^-i?^^i^.^M also been stated that whea fhe husband Oiapxakash Soai had coine ID ! Diug, he was givea aa amouat ofRs.50,000/-. That by iteelfwouM nxrt coastitute part of offence of cruelty under Scctioas 4^S- A 8»406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 6. In fhe case of P»atf caiaad Rathate a» Or«. Vs. Skate <rf <&.Q. h Mtother3 & 8a»t.Jamnurt Kmu Va. Siat. Qaradeen KM ® Luidl & • Ors.4. •tfais Court has held fhat thc ofifance ofcraclty is nota conteraing ' ofienee and fhe ofifence is triabte by thc Magfatrate having territorial , jurisdictfoo of area wheTem fhc cruelty fa altegcd to liave bcen coinmitted and not at thc place whercin comp]amant - wife reMded ; .tri.fh her paxcnts. Thus, even ifthe aMegation coatained to the chai^c slMset 1s taken to bc truc, the ofifence tmder Sections 498- A & 406 offhe IPQ has been conmutted wittun the territorial jurisdiction of tbe Court at Oeedam and Court at Durg had no jurisdictioa to deal with tfae matter as fcova. the facts discloscd by tfae complainaat in fhewhole PIR ai^i casc diaiy ' statenients, iwpsst of cause ofaction ay/asnst tfac petitioaers atoas at i Dutg. 7. Thus, in view of flie aforesaid discussions, la'oceednigs asiasag out of j Cruae No. 36/05 rcgistered at Mahfla PoUce Ttana Bittg peridiag \ befare llie Judicial Magistrate Ptrst Class, Durg in CEiaitaal Case-i No.965/05 in so far as they related to the preaent petittoacrs are hcreby quashed. The charge sheet fllcd befoare (he Jiidicial Magistrate ; First Class, Dm'g shafl be aetumed fer bdag foBwarded ta tiie j concemed poMcc station at Geedam fiw takiug appxopriate actiaa ia ' 32006 (1) C.G.L.J. 101 - 2007 (3) G.G.L.J. 95 -5 accordance with laay, in vicw of the judgmeat of tte Supfeaie Oourt in. tfac case of Satvtader Kaw Vs. 8tal» (Ctovt. ofH.G.T. of aaother6 . 8. Petltion is acccadiagfy aBowed. fAan11 sdL' <.hrivastava .."-""s51"""" fssveaa. 5 (1999) 8 SCC728 s JT 1S99 (8) SC 25