IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28595 of 2008 1. Sitaram Singh, son of Late Basudeo Prasad. 2. Nilam Devi, wife of Sitaram Singh. Both resident of Village-Manpa, Police Station-Guraru, District-Gaya. 3. Sumitra Devi, wife of Janki Nandan Singh. 4. Sushil Kumar Verma, son of Rajendra Bhushan. 5. Tuni Kumari @ Nibha Kumari, wife of Sushil Kumar Verma. 6. Ranjit Kumar, son of Janki Nandan Singh. 7. Janki Nandan Singh, son of Late Dukhi Mahto. 8. Madhuri Devi, wife of Ranjit Kumar. All resident of Village-Pakhnahiya, Police Station- Sanghauli, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. …………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Punam Roy, daughter of Kumud Narayan Roy, Resident of village-Dahia, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai. At present Resident of Mohalla-Anandpur, P.S. Begusarai (Town), District-Begusarai. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Md. Irshad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- O R D E R 6. 14.12.2011. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case 2 No.393 of 2006 (G.R. No.2779 of 2006), taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and one Dr. Sanjeev Kumar. 2. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, as forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, to the concerned police station for investigation and submission of final form, Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 was instituted under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners. On investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, who, on perusal of the case diary and the chargsheet, arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the case and, accordingly, took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused, named in 3 the F.I.R., including the petitioners through the impugned order dated 7.6.2008 3. As per the complaint petition of opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, the marriage of the opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, was performed on 7.10.2005 with Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, son of petitioner no.7, Janki Nandan Singh, according to Vaidik customs in Arya Samaj Temple. After the marriage, opposite party no.2, stayed with her husband, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, upto 31.12.2005 in Room No.45 of Patna Medical College Hostel, as wife and husband. On 1.1.2006, opposite party no.2 went to her sasural village-Deokali with her husband, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, and used to reside there. Petitioner no.2, Nilam Devi and petitioner no.5, Tuni Kumari alias Nibha Kumari, Nanads of opposite party no.2, used to reside at the sasural of opposite party no.2, where their husbands, the petitioner no.1, Sitaram Singh, and petitioner no.4, Sushil Kumar Verma, used to visit usually. While the behaviour of in-laws of opposite party no.2 was good with her upto June, 2006, on knowing about conceiving of pregnancy of female issue by her in the last week of July, 4 2006, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dewars, Gotni, Nanads and Nandosi, started to misbehave and harass her taunting that if her husband, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, was married somewhere else, at least, they would have received Rs.20,00,000/- in dowry. Ultimately, the opposite party no.2 was asked by the accused to bring Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry by giving threatening that otherwise the remarriage of her husband would be performed. In spite of showing inability of her father to fulfill the demand by the opposite party no.2, she was being tortured in various modes for demand by the accused. The opposite party no.2 informed to her Maika about her torture, on which her parents alongwith others came to her sasural on 30.7.2006 and tried to convince to her in-laws and also gave written complaint to the police station. While opposite party no.2 was kept properly about 10 days by the in-laws, but, thereafter, she was being again tortured and conspiracy was being made by in-laws to get her pregnancy aborted, then the opposite party no.2 sent information to her parents. In the night of 12.9.2006, her in-laws, named as accused in the F.I.R., entered in her room and started to assault through fists and slaps with intention to get her 5 pregnancy aborted and her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil to burn her and her husband tried to set her on fire, but anyhow she saved her life and on reaching of her mother at her sasural, she went to her Maika. It has also been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that on reaching at Maika, she was taken by her mother and others at Meera Nursing Home where she was admitted. While she was saved but her pregnancy was aborted. 4. The sole submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, it is apparent that the occurrence as alleged had taken place in sasural village-Deokali of the opposite party no.2, situated in the district of Gaya, and the opposite party no.2 came from her sasural village with her mother to her Maika situated in the district of Begusarai. As such, the institution of the F.I.R. bearing Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the basis of the complaint petition of opposite party no.2, and taking of cognizance of the offences by the Chief Judicial 6 Magistrate, Begusarai, on submission of the chargesheet under the aforesaid Sections is suffering from lack of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of a Bench of this Court rendered in Vijay Kumar Roy Vs. State of Bihar and another {2008(2) PLJR 110} 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, on perusal of the case diary and the chargesheet, has rightly taken the cognizance for offences under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners as the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is of continuing in nature. 6. As in the present case, the issue is confined only to territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, by lodging the F.I.R. bearing Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, hence, there is no need to go into other factual aspects. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, 7 Begusarai, on perusal of the case diary and the chargesheet, as submitted by the police on investigation in Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, lodged on the basis of the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 498-A, 307 and 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is made out against the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners. It is desirable to refer to the provision of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code relating to cruelty at the hands of the husband or relatives of the husband of a women and also the provisions of Sections 177-179 of Chapter-XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is read as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 8 Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” Sections 177-179 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure are read as under: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial.-(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 9 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” 7. It is clear from the above provisions of Sections 177-179 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure that normally the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local areas or the offence consist of several acts done in different local areas, as per Section 178 the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such 10 consequence had ensued. 8. In the present case, Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 was instituted on the basis of the complaint petition of opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, as forwarded to the Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and submission of final form. In the complaint petition/F.I.R., opposite party no.2 has narrated about performing of her marriage with Dr. Sanjeev Kumar on 7.10.2005 and also about causing cruelty and harassment by her husband, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and the petitioners for demand of cash of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry. The opposite party no.2 also stated that on knowing about conceiving pregnancy of a female issue by her, her in-laws forced her to leave the sasural house in a pregnant condition and she reached at her Maika in the district of Begusarai, where she was admitted at Meera Nursing Home but she lost her pregnancy due to abortion 9. On going through the provision of Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code referred to above, it is clear that harassment and cruelty at the hands of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman is punishable with 11 imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine. In explanation appended to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, not only the physical but the mental cruelty has also been included as an act of the offence. 10. In the case of Vijay Kumar Roy (Supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a Bench of this Court relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Others. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another. {(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100} held in paragraph-4 as under: “4. From plain reading of the abovementioned decisions, it is clear that the courts have not deviated from general rule as provided under section 177 Cr.P.C. regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court according to which every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Admittedly, in the instant case, the place of occurrence has been shown as the house of the petitioner situated at Mohalla-Kashipur within Samastipur town as well as the campus of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Araria. The above facts establish beyond doubt that the cause of action had never arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria and, therefore, I am of the view that the 12 impugned order of taking cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, is bad in law and must be set aside.” 11. In the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. {2011(2) PLJR 191 (SC)} similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the said case, Sunita Kumari Kashyap, was the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court, who had lodged the F.I.R. bearing No.66 of 2007 at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya, under Sections 498-A and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which on submission of the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, had taken the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections and had transferred the record to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Gaya, where an objection was raised by the husband and in-laws, who were accused in that case, about the territorial jurisdiction of the court at district-Gaya, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Nos.42478 of 2009 and 45153 of 2009 were filed by the in-laws and husband respectively of Sunita Kumari Kashyap before this Court, which were 13 allowed by different Benches of this Court vide order dated 19.3.2010 and 29.4.2010 respectively, holding the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The aforesaid orders, i.e., the order dated 19.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.42478 of 2009 and the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.45153 of 2009, were set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders, in its decision, in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (Supra), held in paragraphs-10 and 11, as under: “10. Mr. Sanyal also relied on a decision of this Court in Bhura Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein following the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others (supra), this Court held that “cause of action” having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. For the same reasons, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while there is no dispute as to the proposition in view of the fact that in the case on hand, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence at the continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. In view of the above reason, both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case and we are unable to accept the stand taken by 14 Mr. Sanyal. 11. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted.” 12. From the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, it is no doubt that the harassment and cruelty 15 as alleged was caused to the opposite party no.2 at the hands of the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners at her sasural situated in the district of Gaya and from where she went to her Maika situated in the district of Begusarai in compelling circumstances and, ultimately, she lost her pregnancy due to abortion in Meera Nursing Home at Begusarai. As such, while the cause arose at Gaya, but the effect of the cause was ensued and was continuing in the district of Begusarai, due to the mental cruelty suffered continuously by the opposite party no.2 in view of the provisions of Sections 178 (c) and 179 of Chapter-XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Begussarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 (G.R. No.2779 of 2006), amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. 13. In the result, this application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)