THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.1003 of 2009 Date: 24.11.2009 Between: K.G. Thimmareddy and others. Petitioners. And P. Sirisha and another. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.1003 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 28.05.2009 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are shown in the complaint for the sake of convenience. A1 is the husband of the complainant. A6 is the mother-in-law and A7 is the father-in-law of the complainant. A2 and A8 are the junior paternal uncles of A1. A3 is the wife of A2 and A4 and A5 are the daughters of A8 and cousins of A1. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage between the complainant and A1 took place on 13.05.2005 in Bellary and at the time of marriage on the demand of A1 to A3, and A6 to A8, the parents of the complainant gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, 50 tulas of gold, one gold ring, one gold bracelet, one gold chain, 1 ½ Kg of silver to the accused as dowry. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to A1 for purchasing clothes. On further demand, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was given for marriage expenses. After the marriage the complainant joined with her husband and they lived for five days at Korlagondi village, Bellary Taluk, Karnataka State. Later on, A1 shifted the family to Bellary and began to live in the house of A2. A2 is owning a cotton mill and A1 is working as Manager in the said cotton mill. The complainant and A1 to A5 were living under one roof. It is alleged that A1 was addicted to vices and he used to come to the house late in the night and when the complainant requested A1 to change his habits, all other accused supported A1 and they chastised the complainant and directed her to adjust with him. A1 to A5 demanded the complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. When she expressed her inability, all the accused developed grudge against her and used to harass her both physically and mentally treating her as their maid servant. In July 2005 when the complainant visited Korlagondi village, A6 to A8 also demanded additional dowry and harassed her. On 15.04.2006 when the complainant was suffering from Chickengunya, A1 took her to Kamalapadu village, Anantapur District and left her at her parents house and while leaving he directed the complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Panchayats were held and the parents of the complainant promised to pay additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused, but the accused did not agree. A1 filed a divorce petition against the complainant with false allegations and asked the complainant not to attend the Court to enable him to seek ex parte divorce, but the complainant refused and engaged an Advocate. On 12.02.2007 Panchayat was held at Kamalapadu village and A1, A6 and A7 demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in that panchayat. On 08.03.2007, A1 to A3, A5 and A8 came in a vehicle to Kamalapadu village and during mid night A1 with an intention to kill the complainant put a pillow on her face and pressed. The complainant with great difficulty escaped and came out of the room. Then her parents and junior paternal uncle and others came there. A2 and A8 scolded A1 saying that he had spoiled their plan and went away in their vehicles. The complainant gave a report to the police Vajrakarur Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.9 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By mistake no case was registered against A8 by the police. A1 to A7 obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Bellary. The complainant filed a petition in Crl.P. No.1761 of 2007 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for cancellation of bail and the said petition was allowed and anticipatory bail granted to the accused was cancelled. A2 to A5 filed a Criminal Petition No.1981 of 2007 in this Court to quash the complaint in Crime No.9 of 2007 of Vajrakarur Police Station and the same has been dismissed holding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Since the police filed charge sheet against A1, A6 and A7 only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC deleting other sections and the names of other accused, the complainant filed private complaint, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against A1 to A8 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 6 were examined. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda, observed that the sworn statements of the witnesses show that the marriage of the complainant and A1 took place at Bellary and that the alleged harassment for additional dowry had taken place at Bellary and that the alleged offences committed by A4, A6 and A7 are not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda. However, the other incidents i.e., the allegation that A1 demanded the parents of the complainant for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- when he left the complainant at her parents house and the incident that occurred on 08.03.2007 are within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Uravakonda, and that the allegations do not make out a prima facie case against A2 to A8 and that prima facie case is made out against A1 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. Holding so, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda, has taken the case on file against A1 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC, but dismissed the complaint against A2 to A8. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur (hereinafter referred as “Sessions Judge”). The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the judgment reported in Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy v. State of A.P.[1], came to the conclusion that the alleged offence of harassment for dowry under Section 498-A IPC is the continuous offence and therefore the findings of the learned Magistrate are not legal. It was also held that no findings have been given relating to the alleged offences under Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge, set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter to the lower Court for giving a specific finding as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and also for the offences under Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that admittedly, the marriage of A1 and the complainant was performed at Bellary and subsequently they lived at Bellary and almost all the allegations of dowry harassment had taken place at Bellary and that no specific overt acts have been attributed against the accused with regard to the incident that occurred on 08.03.2007 at Kamalapadu village and in the above circumstances, the learned Magistrate is justified in dismissing the complaint against A2 to A8. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has given cogent and convincing reasons for his findings and no interference is required. It is also submitted that while exercising revisional jurisdiction the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have remanded the matter to the lower Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant while relying on the judgment in Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy’s case (1 supra), submitted that Section 498-A IPC is a continuous offence and therefore the learned Magistrate has committed an irregularity in not considering the incidents that occurred at Bellary for taking cognizance of the offence. Further, relying on the judgment reported in Badana Mohana Rao v. State of A.P.[2], it is submitted that the revisional Court is empowered to remand the case to the lower Court for retrial or for fresh disposal. The points that arise for consideration are; (1) whether the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is a continuous offence? and (2) whether the learned Sessions Judge while exercising revisional powers can remand the matter to the lower Court? I am not inclined to discuss the incriminating material, if any, in the statements of the witnesses examined by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly, the marriage of A1 and the complainant was performed at Bellary. The parents of A1 lived at Korlagondi village, Karnataka State. It appears that after the marriage A1 and the complainant lived at Korlagonda village for about five or six days. Subsequently, A1 went to Bellary and he was residing along with the complainant in the house of A2. All the allegations made by the complainant occurred at Bellary. Only two incidents seem to have occurred at Kamalapadu village, Anantapur District. One of such incidents is that on 15.04.2006 when the complainant was suffering from Chickengunya, A1 is alleged to have brought the complainant to her parents house at Kamalapadu village and left her there and while returning back he directed the complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. The other incident is with regard to Panchayat said to have been held on 12.02.2007. The third incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.03.2007 at Kamalapadu village. Whether any specific allegations have been made against A2 to A8 or not and whether the allegations make out any prima facie case or not has to be considered by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, I am not inclined to discuss those aspects. As far as the allegation of dowry is concerned demand of additional dowry or harassment for additional dowry appears to be a continuous one. When the complainant is at her parents house and when she is compelled to live in her parents house, merely because of non-fulfillment of the demand of the accused, it appears that the mental harassment would continue though the complainant is residing in her parents house. I n Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy’s case (1 supra), it was observed as follows. “……………The fact that after the complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home she having no other option had taken shelter in her parental home for her sustenance and support, does not put an end to the harassment physical and mental that she was subjected to. The alleged physical acts of assault and other modes of harassment narrated in the complaint continued to haunt her aggravating the mental agony and sense of insecurity, which is nothing but continuance of mental harassment…………..” In view of the same, it has to be held that the harassment demanding additional dowry is nothing but a continuous offence and therefore the Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the victim/complainant has been residing with her parents i.e., at the place of her residence after she had been driven out by her husband or his relatives has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by such wife. Coming to the point whether the Court is empowered to remand the matter to the trial Court, this Court in Badana Mohana Rao’s case (2 supra), observed as follows. “……….When once it is conceded that the powers of the revisional court are synonymous with the powers of the appellate court, I am of the view that the revisional court is empowered to remand the matter for fresh trial by the trial court instead of embarking upon itself making an enquiry and pass an order one way or the other. Hence, I hold that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the revisional court is not having the power to remand the matter……….” In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Dt. 24.11.2009 Nsr [1] 2008(1) ALT (Crl.) 181 (AP) [2] 1997 (2) APLJ 170 (HC)