WW HIGH COURT OF C.HHATTI5$ARH AT BILA$PUR Cr.M.P. Na. 389/200$ Pgiitimgrs L Manik Bi$was S/c) Du’ai Biswas Aged amm- 41 years 2. 5m? Mm Biswm: W/a Manik Bi5was Aged axLmui" 37" year-5 Bafh are raident of Ekm Nagar Caicny Raipur Disfr-ic’r kaipur (6.6.) 3‘ Sm? Tandm Biswqg W/o JP. Biswas Aged abau'i’ 60 years, We 3mm Coiony Raipur Districf Rqipur §C,$g) Verws 1‘ 5mm of Chhqttisggrh Through: Simian House Offiter- Police Sfafion» Pankhajur, Dish-ici- Uf‘rar Bqs‘tqr Kmker' (Q6) Z: Susmim Biswas Aggd abouf 25 yams, WidQw of Vijay Biswas @ Sujas C/o Rohini Pravision Store, .Shiv Nagar, Raipur- Disfr-ict Raiyur‘ (ca) PETITION UNDER $ECT10N 482 OF THE CODE OF CkIMINAL FRG€EBU§E \ Rgspgnéenw ($8: Hm’ble Mr. T.P‘ Shanna, (L) 5hri YgC‘ 5harma, counsal for fhe pefifianers‘ Shri Pankqj 3hrivasfava, F‘tmei iawyer‘ fm‘ ”Him Shi’e. ORAL ORDEQ (Passed ar' 2%” Augusi: E668) This pe‘ritinn is direcfed against *hg order dared 34‘9‘2007paged by fhe Judicial Magis‘rrcd-e Firsf Class, Bhqnuprmappur, in Criminai Caae No, -- 111/2005 whereby fhe warned Judiciai‘ Magi$trafe Firsvt Qlogs affer hqiding fhaf The par? of muse. of (xm‘ion wow a‘l‘ Phakhqjur rgjecfed the agnp!icq?ion fiizd on behalf of fha applicanfs under- 5g¢fions 177: 1.78 and 245 (2) of the Cade. cf Criminai Protedure, 1973 (hereinafter raferred ”h: a3, ‘fhg Code} 2. The. erder i$ chalknged on the ground ‘rhqt no parf 0f cause 0f ac'rion arose a1- Phakhajur and fherefore, *he. Judicig! Mugisi'mfe Firsf mags, Bhanuprmqpgur was no? camgemnt +9 take. cagnizance of fhe offenca gains? the petitioners. 3, I have hxzqr§ .Shr-i V.C, Sharnm, counse! for The petifionew and Shri Pankaj Shrivgsfqva, Pane! lawyer for 'rhe 5mm and perused we, petition as aim #he. order impugned. 4, Learned wunse! far- the. applicnMs submi’rs :rhm rasponden? No. 2—5Llshmi‘fa Bi$wos wa$ m¢rried To *he deceased Vijay Biswas. The ywitioners Na 1 to 3 are relatives of The daceased Vijay Biswas md ‘they are residents of Rnipur. The, respond“? N9. Z is residznf of Pankhajur, Tami! Bhanuymappum Disiric‘f Kanker‘ At the insfame of respondenf No Z, criminal oase for oommission of offence punishoblo under Secfion 498-A of fhe Indian Pong! Code has been fiied beforo flag Cour? of 'rhe Judioial Mogisfrcrre Fir-sf Class; Bhmugarmoppur, whiah has boon regis+ered as Criminal Case. No. 111/2005. The pafi'lionew had filed Tho application/objection under Sections 177., 178 and 2,45 (Z) of The Code before fhe +rial oourt, bul' fhe somo has boon dismissad by fha ordar‘ impugned‘ Loamzd oounsel further gubmiis +harl' the resyondenl‘ No, Z has wri‘H’en in her wri‘H-en complain? 'Ehod' #:e was subgecied ‘l'o cruelly by fhe pelifioners a? Roipur and fwice she was: fhrea‘i-ened by her husband m' Pankhqjur, Her husband had alga misbehavecl wifh her- peren‘hs of Pankhqjum bu? no detaile of threat or misbehqve have been smfed by fhe responden'r No. z or her parents: She has fried to oreafe ieehniml jurisdiction of Bhanupra‘l‘appur, but no port of muse of aofion arose within the jurisdidion of the Cour? oituufed 9+ Bhonupro-rappur‘ Learned counsel for fhe petitioner$ placed relionoe in the mmfer of V. Abraham Aim: and others v. Inspecior of hike, enemai and eoofher‘ in which i? has held by fhe Apex Courf Tho"? oruel‘ty on the basis of'demond’of dowry is o question of fact and if on the basis of facts suoh offence is noi’ confinuing 'l'hen sub—seotion (c) of Seei'ion 178 of the Code hos no applico‘rion. Pore 11 of fhe above judgment reads as under:- “11. A similar plea reigning io confinuonoe of the offence was examined by fhis cour‘i‘ in Sujafa Mukherjee (Slut) v.. Prashan? Kumar Mukherjee (1997) (5) 5CC 30). There fhe allegoi'ione ,‘ MR 2004 Sc 4286 .p" E rekxting 1’0 commission af alleged affemes punishable undar- 5e€+iéns 498-A, 506 ané>323 ?€ fhréugh ’khe eiawry a‘emanés were made earlier fhe husband of fha camplqinanf wgnf to the piace where campiaimni' was raiding aw had assauEfed her. This Cam-1' held in that fqzfuq! background that clause (c) of Seciion 178 was aifracieci. Eui‘ in fine presenf case 1m faciuai posiiion is differ-ani- qnd the wmyiainan? her-5eif lei? tha hguse af ihe husband on i5.4.1997 on accouni' of aiieged dowry demands by the husband and his mimives. There is fhgrgnfi-er noi- even a whisper- af ciiegafioris abou’r any demand uf dowry ur commissian of (my ad ¢onsfiiufing an offeme much less a‘i Chennai. ma? being $a, The icgic af Section 178 (c) of fhe Code reiming m commission ¢f fhe affences cannoi' be appliad.“ 7. This i$ a paiii-ion fiied under Sgdian 4&2 of The cod¢ for invaking inherent jurisdici’ion: Inherent powers are. in the nefure of extraordinary pewers s¢ be usad sparingiy or azhieving The object mentitmed in Sgcfion 452 of fhe Code in ease where There is no express provision empowering 'l‘he High Couri 'l'o achieve the said object While dealing with fhe provisions of Seo‘l’ion 482 ¢f ihe Code; fha Agex Cauri has hgid in the case of 5mm @f Pun‘igb v. Kes‘mri Lola as under:— “Exercise af- pawer under 5. 482 of fhe Coda is a :ase of this nafur'e is ihe axcep'iion anci no? the ruie. The seciion d'oes no? confer any ngw powem on ihz High Court It oniy savzs fhe inherenf power which fhe Cnur'i‘ possesséd before The enactmeni of iha Code. Ii- anvisqgeg: three circumstances under which ihe inherent jurisdic‘i'ion may be exercised, nameiy (i) fo give effgci To an ordgr- under- fhe Cade, (ii) f0 preveni abuse cf ihe pracesi m" Caur'i‘, an& (iii) “i0 aihenwise sewne i'he ends 61" justicg If is neither possible nor-”desirable 'i‘o lay dawn any infiexibie nuie which wouiti govern fhe exercise of inheren'i‘ jurisdic'i‘ion. No Iegislq‘i'ive enadmen‘i dsaling wifh pmcadurs sari provide 0r aii cases “rim? may pcssibie arise, Cour’rs fherafor-e, have inherenf powers epqri' from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper disoharge of fumiions am” dui‘ies imposed upen fhem by law. The? is the doei‘rine which finds expression in fhe seciion which mereiy recognizes m6 preserves inheren‘r powers of The High Courts. Ali Caur‘i‘s, whether civil or criminal possess, in ihe absence of any express provision, as inhereni in Their eonsi'ifuiion, oll sueh powers as ore necessary i'o do fhe righ? and "ro undo a wrong in course of adminie'irai‘ion of justice While exercising powers under i’he seeiion ihough 3 2004 CnLJ. 3866 (3868) (Sc) On ‘l'he oi-her hand, order impugned is suoported on behalf of the responden'l' Nor 1/5‘iaie. 6‘ Erma-K @ ‘: widg has fa ht; axgrcised gparingly, wrefully and with cam-ion anci onfy when surfn exercise is jusTh‘ied by #he i'wi‘s specifiwiiy iaid dawn in fhz $e¢+ion i+$ei£ It L4 +o ba axemisad ex ciebi‘ro jus‘ritiae to do rec! and summmiqi Ji.(s+i¢e for- Thg miminisfrai‘icm of which aione Cour“ exisin" 9. In fhe Fight of *hz afnrasaid legai preyosifiona I have axmninazi fhe mmzriai amiiabla on mmrd. Fmm parusnl of the. copy of FIR and wri‘Hen \. mmplain‘r i1- appaar-s fhm‘ the pai‘rioners and the deceased Vijay Siswas: (husband 01F +he respmden‘l' No. 2) had harassed. and Tortured. thz resgandem No‘ 2 jus+ qffar' mar-rigge, a? har‘ ma‘trimonia! huge. Le‘ Raipur and Mix by her husband a”? Pgnkhqiur. Her husband also misbehaved with her yaren‘l's at Pankhqjur and after misbehave and. fhrem', The pesfii'ioners md her husband again ham$sed and for-mmd 'l'he raspmdem’ No. 2 at Raipun Sm‘temen‘l' recorded under- Sac‘rion 161 of fhg Cede may be uged fer omission and' canfmdid‘ian, bm' they are n91 subsfrmfive piece. cf evidenm) FIR and wriffan complain? are subsmn'rive piecz of avidencg, whiah shaws prima fagie fhm the re$9ondenf Na, 2 was thremamd by co-accused Vijqy Biswas mice a? Pankhajur and he qlsa misbehavw wifh her gamma a? Pmkhajur and she was subgzded f0 cruehy by the petitionew and deceqsad Vijqy Bi$was Jusf offar marringe fili todging The FIR In the in$fcm1 gase, the Qffenca of 498—A of #he. LPgC: is gentinuing in natum. If consisw of several ac‘rs done in different lam! areas ia, local areas of Rqipur and Pankhqiur'. 10. While daaling wifh the provisions of sub—eecfion (c) of Section 1753 of fhe Code of Criminal Prooedure; 19.78, ‘i'he Apex Cour-1- has held in fhe ease of $u3c'i'e is: er‘ee (5m?) -.-. Pmsham Kumor Miukhes-geea 14m? in ocse of cruel‘l’y on the ground of demand of dowry if fhe’offences are confinuing in mfure, Then if may be tried by the Couri- having jurisdiction where pari- of case of oefion arose in fer-mg: of sub—section (c) of 5eoi'ion 178 of Hie Code, Pom 7. of fhe above judgmen‘i reads as under:- “7. Despife service being effected on fhe privme respondem'o, no one hao appeared for any of ihe accueea' respondew‘re. We have. iaken info considermion fhe complaint filed by ihe appeilani and ii appears i0 us fhm" i’he compiaini reveais a continuing offenoe of moli'remmen‘l‘ and humilia‘iion mei'ed out 1-o ‘ihe appeliani in i’he hands of aii ihe accused respondeni‘s and in such confinuing offenoe, on eome oocosions all ‘ihe respondenia Am 1997 SC 2465 x f has inken .mrt, Therefwq glguse (4:) of .Sacl'ian 178 of the Cade. cf Criminai Pracea'ure is dearly aftrucfed. We, fherefore, sei‘ aside the impugned order crf fhe High Cour‘r and direct the. [earned Chief Judicici Magisfrafe, Raipur To praceed' wifh fhe ¢rimiml cage. Since fhe mat‘l-er is pending far long, sfgps should be ’raken +0 expedife The hearing. The appeais are ucwrdingiy allowed.“ 11, In The case of Mahan Baithg gnd athgrs v. 5mm nrf Bibar and aaa?her4, the Apex Cour? has hek.‘ fha? if the offence has been mmmi??a:£ r the jurisdiction of differan‘r logal areas fhen it may bg ‘I'ried by any Cour? where par-f of cause of action «we. In ihe instant case accm‘ding To s‘rory of prosecufion, cause of (Imion par-fly qmse within fha jurisdidion 9f Raipur and partly arose within the jurisdintian nf Pankhajur. In the awe 9f V. Abraham Ajith (supra), after izqving tha matrimenial house by the mmpiainant m demand was. made by thg hu$bqnd or their relatives ln that case! the offgnce was not mntinuing offence, but in the instant case, the offenm is cantinuing offence. The case of Y, Abraham Ajith (supra) is diatinguiahabie from the present case. 12, After taking inta consideration the facts that part af muse 0f acticin arose at Pankhajur, the trial court has rejected the apgaliaation/objection filed on behaif of the petitioners. On careful examination, I am of the View that the offence, in the instant case, is eontinuing in nature and triable by the Court having jurisdiction at Raipur or at Pankhajur. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in rejeoting the'appliaation, 13. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission 1 '.A ’KLL—J “I Sdl- ‘ , T. P. Sharma E Judge tv (2001) 4 soc 350