IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2006 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 2021 of 2005(C) ------------------------- CC.13/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. L.DILEEP, "AKSHAYA", YAKKARA JUNCTION, KINASSERY POST, PALAKKAD 678 707. 2. V.LAKSHMANAN, "AKSHAYA", YAKKARA JUNCTION, KINASSERY POST, PALAKKAD 678 707. 3. M.C.RETHNAKUMARI, "AKSHAYA", YAKKARA JUNCTION, KINASSERY POST, PALAKKAD 678 707. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, ALATHUR. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR. ADDL.R4 : SRI PAZHANIMALA, S/O. VELLANDI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, EDATHIL COLONY, NELLIYAMKUNNU, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CRL.M.A.8689/05 DT.21-7-2005) R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P.M. HABEEB ADDL.R4 SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/8/2006, THE COURT ON 13-12-2006, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.R. UDAYABHANU, J. CRL.M.C.NO.2021 of 2005-C DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.13/2005 with respect to the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are the petitioners, who have sought for setting aside the proceedings pending against them specifically on the ground that the police that investigated the matter and the court wherein the proceedings are pending are not having jurisdiction. It is further pointed out by counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner and the de facto complainant were separated by filing Section 13-B petition under the Hindu Marriage Act and all matters were settled but in violation of the terms of understanding, the de facto complainant is still pursuing the proceedings initiated under Section 498-A. 2. It is the case that the first petitioner, who is the son of the second and third petitioners, married the daughter of the 4th respondent who laid the F.I.S. and that they were residing in the matrimonial home situated at Yakkara Junction in Palakkad Town within the jurisdiction of Palakkad Town Police station. The CRMC2021/2005 -2- instant crime was investigated by S.H.O. Alathur and the proceedings are pending as C.C.No.13/2005 in the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alathur is a person closely connected with the 4th respondent and his family and hence the petitioners were intolerably harassed by the third respondent, Dy.S.P.Alathur. The house of 4th respondent is situated at Alathur. As per Section 177Cr.P.C., the offences are liable to be triable within the local jurisdiction of the court wherein it has been committed. It is, as per the prosecution allegations that the daughter of the 4th respondent was ill-treated at the house of the petitioners and no incident has taken place in the house of the 4th respondent and hence, Alathur police and Alathur court is not having the jurisdiction to investigate or to try the matter and hence the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside. 3. Another contention raised is that there are two F.I.Rs. with respect to the same allegations as evident from Annexures A & B and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated. 4. So far as the second contention is concerned, I find that CRMC2021/2005 -3- the same has not been established as Annexure-A is only an intimation to the first petitioner from the Dy.S.P. directing him to appear before the above officer in order to enquire with respect to a complaint against him submitted by the 4th respondent. Annexure-A would not indicate that a crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint. Annexure-B, of course, is the F.I.R.of the crime registered in the instant case. Hence, the above contentions based on Anneure-A is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 5. The point suggested that the first petitioner and his wife, who is the daughter of the 4th respondent, has effected divorce and hence offence under Section 498-A will not be applicable also cannot be upheld. (See Abdul Sathar v. Aneesa[2005(3)KLT 468] 6. The major contention is that Alathur police and Alathur court is not having jurisdiction as the alleged incident of ill-treatment has taken place at Yakkara, which is within the jurisdiction of Palakkad Town police station and also not within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. Counsel has contended that Section 179 Cr.P.C. will not be CRMC2021/2005 -4- applicable as the offence is complete, as per the prosecution allegation, at the house of the petitioners at Yakkara. It is only if the consequences as well as the alleged actions altogether constitute the offence that Section 179 will be applicable. 7. In order to stress the point, counsel has relied on the decision reported in Purushottamdas v. State of W.B.[AIR 1961 SC 1589] and Kashi Ram Mehta v. Emperor [A.I.R.1934 Allahabad 499] wherein it has been clearly laid down that for the application of Section 179, the act done and the consequences ensued must together constitute the offence. If the offence is complete in itself by reason of the act having been done and the consequence is a mere result of it which was not essential for the completion of the offence, then Section 179 would not be applicable. It is pointed out that cruelty envisaged was completed at the matrimonial home and hence only the court of the place where the above is situated alone can have jurisdiction. It is pointed out that all the prosecution allegations are with respect to the incident that took place at the house of the petitioners/accused. The decision in M.H.Alexander v. Claira Alexander [AIR 1959 Allahabad 67] was also relied on CRMC2021/2005 -5- in support of the case set up by him. 8. On the other hand, the respondent has relied on the decision reported in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee [AIR 1997 S.C.2465] placing reliance on Section 178 Clauses (b) and (c), i.e.where the offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. According to the counsel for the respondents, in view of Section 178(b), the court of Alathur has got jurisdiction. But I find that in the above cited decision the facts are to the effect that the husband had also gone to the parental home of the complainant/wife and assaulted her. 9. I find that the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v.Suresh Kaushal [2002 Crl.L.J.217](SC)] has held that in view of Section 179 the court of the place where the consequences ensued can also have got jurisdiction to try the offences. But in the above case the consequence was miscarriage at the parental house of the complainant as a result of beating inflicted at the matrimonial home. Evidently the consequence was such that the same was so pronounced and CRMC2021/2005 -6- that which can be established by objective evidence. In the decision reported in K.C.Mathew v. Reena Paul, (1998 Crl.L.J.2300) this Court has held that the court of the place of the parental home has got jurisdiction vide section 178(c) Cr.P.C. as it was found that the accused had contacted the respondent/complainant over phone on two occasions and demanded a sum of Rs.12 lakhs. He also threatened the complainant's mother who was exhausted due to mental shock on receiving the above threat, despite the fact that they have already paid Rs.10 lakhs and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 10. In the above cited case also there was clear evidence of incident that had taken place in the parental house of the wife. Of course, Section 498-A I.P.C. is a continuing offence. Even then the offence should be continued to be committed in the place of the court having jurisdiction. The final report and the F.I.R.has been produced before this Court which is hardly sufficient to come to a definite conclusion on the point as to whether any acts of cruelty were perpetuated at the place of residence of the de facto complainant. Evidently territorial jurisdiction is a technical matter which could be set right. It is CRMC2021/2005 -7- evident from Section 462 Cr.P.C. that the proceedings cannot be treated as void ab initio even if the same was held in the court not having territorial jurisdiction. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that investigation by the police who are not having jurisdiction rendered the proceedings totally illegal cannot be upheld. 11. In the circumstances the petitioners are directed to raise the above contention before the court below and the court shall consider the same and if found that the above court is not having jurisdiction, the proceedings is to be transferred to the court having jurisdiction. The Crl.M.C.is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ks.