^..-^ HJGH COORTOF CHHATTSSGARHAT BILASPUR CrAI.P.No. 124/2008 ApplJcants 1. Asfaz Kumar, age : 34 years, S/o. Md. Kamaru Jama, 2. rvld. Sahabuddin age -38 years, S/o, fy1d. Kamaru Jama, -3. Md. Kamaru IJa.ma, age 75 years, S/o. Tabaa Hussain, 4. Smt. Kaushar Jama, ags 70 years, W/o. Md.KamaruJama 5. Smt Rasida Khatoon, age 34 years W7o. Md.Shabuddin Ail R/o. ivlomsinpura, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 6. Smt. Juhl Gazaia, age 25 years, W/o. Md. Muzzammil, ?. Muzzammi! Hsssan, age 33 ysars, S/o. Md. fvtuize, Applicant No. 6 & 7 R/o. Birpln Bazar, Munger, Kasim Bazar, Munger (Blhar) 8. Smt. Shama, age 27 years, VV/o. Md. Rlzman, . 9. Md. Rizwan Ahmed, age 32 years, S/.o. AbctuiHazi Bari, Appiicant no. 8 & 9 R/o. Moraya Ghat, Gaya, .Kotwali - Gaya (Bihar) Versus Non-applicants 1. State of ChhatSlsgarh, Through : Statlon House Officer, P.S. Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur 2. Shahida Pan/ln, age 26 years, W/o. Asfaq Kamar, R/o. C/o, yaseen Aaiam, Jashpur Nagar. Motor Bus Stand, Dlstt. Jashpur (C.G.) APPUCATiON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRJMJNAL PROCEDURE. 1973 (SB: Hon'bSe Mr. T-.P. Sharma, J.) Present:" Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for the appilcants. Shri Vlnod Tekam, Panel 'aw/er for the non-applicant No. 1/State. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsei for the non-appiicant No. 2. Orai Order (Passed on 21st Ju!y, The appjicants have filed an appiication under section 482 oftheCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Cr.P.C.) for quashment ofthe proceeding cn the ground of junsdictional error. - z- i. 2. The proceedlng pending before the Chief Judteial Magistrate, Jashpur in Criminal Case No. 161/2007 for commission of offence punishabie under section 498-A and 325/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibitioh Act is chaSienged on the ground that the entire cause of actlon relating to the aforesaid offence has been arose within the territoriai jurisdiction of the Court of Ambikapur and not in the Court ofJashpur. 3. . 1 have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the copy of charge sheet filed on behalf of the applicants. " 4. Learned counsel for the appilcants sybmlts that according to the charge sheet.-complainant/non-appJicant No.-2 nameiy Shahida Pan/lrs who is wlfe of the applicant No. 1 vvas subjected to cruelty at Amblkapur and not at Jashpur. No part of cause of action arose wlthjn •the territoria! junsdiction of Jashpur, therefore, contlnuance of the proceedlngs before the .Court of Jashpur wouid amount to abuse of process of the Court, Learned counsei for the appiicants further submits that it is written in the undated complaint that when compiasnant telephoned to the appiicant No, 1 from Jahspur to Ambikapur, then appilcant No. 1 told herthat she should direct to her father to pay money then he will come, but no document or evidence relating to teiephonic conversatlon has been filed by the prosecutJon and that too is only against the 'appiicant No. 1 and not against the ail applicants. 5, The case under sections 498-A arad 325/34 of the indian .Penai Code against the appllcants is reglstered^ Substantive part of the offence has been arose within the territorial JurisdJction of Arrsbikapur< butoniy the part of cause 'of action that too to teiephonlc conversion arose at Jashpur..The prosecutlon has not fiied any document relatlng to telephonic conversation. According to copy of charge sheet, the non-applicant No, 2 was subjected to crueity by the appilcants at thelr resldent l,e. matrimonia! house ofthe non-applieant No.;2 i.e.Ambikapur. When -she was at Jashpur In .her matemal house, she telepnoned to the applicant then he was told by the non-applicant No. 2 that she should direct to her father to pay money then he wili come. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 that in this case offence punishabie under section 498"A of the indian Penal Code Is a contlnuing in nature. Part ofcause of action relating to cruelty by the applicant. No. 1 to the non-applJcant No. 2 by teiephone arose at Jashpur where the non-appllcant No. 2 presently resldes and in case of offence continuing in nature in accordance wlth sub-sections (c) and (d) of •l6^ -3- t^. Section 178 of the Cr.P. C., the Court sltuated at Ambikapur and aiso at Jashpur are comDetent totri the case. 7. Learned counsel for the non-appiicants No. 1 and 2 reiying upon the judgment of this Court In the case of.Akhl! Prasad Bajpayee & others v, State of Chhattisgarh & another passed vide order dated 21 Ju!y, 2008 in Criminsi RevisJon No. 213/2008 submits that if part of cause of action arose in different iocai areas, then it may be tried by any Court where part of cause of action arose. 8. From the perusal of the copy of charge sheet and ordersheets, It is ciear that the applicant No, 1 Js the husband ofthe non-appilcant No.2 and the appiicants No. 2 to 9 are relatlves of the husband of the non-applicant No» 2-The non-applicant No- 2 was residing in her matrimonial house at Ambikapur where the appjicants are residlng, She was subjected to cruelty by the applicants on the ground of demand of dowiy at Ambikapur and when she was at Jashpur in her maternaJ house. When she talked with ner husband/'applicant No. 1 bytelephone atthattime the applicant No. 1 toid her that she should direct her father to pay m.oney then he will. come,, Lastly she went to her matrimoniai house where the appiicants tried to burn her. and afterwards she came back to her, matemal house. • 9. In the instant case, the non-appiicant No. 2 was subjected to cruelty by the applicants from June, 2001 to Aprii, 2006 at Ambikapur and one tlme by telephone when she was at Jashpur. The offence, In this case, is a contlnulng in nature from 2001 to 2006. 10. !n the case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Poilce, Chennal1, the Hon'bie Apex Court has heid that crueity on the basls of demand of dowry is a questson of fact and If on the basis of facts such offence is not continuing offence then sub-section (c) of Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. has no appiication. Para 11 of the above judgment reads as under:" "A simiiar plea relating to contlnuance of the offence was examined by thjs court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) y. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997 (5) SCC 30) There the ailegations related to commission of aiieged offences punishabte under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 iPC through the dowry demands were made eariier the husband of the compiainant went to the piace where comp!ainaRt was rssidjng and had assauited her. This Court heid In that factuai background that dause ( c) of Section 178 wasattracted. But in the present case the factuai position is different and the compiainant herseif ieft the house of the husband on 15/4/1997 on account of aileged dowry demands 1AIR 2004 SC: 4286 -^-- /i^ bythe hu^band and hisreilfcton^. There is thereafter not even a whisper ofaHegatioRsIs&outanydemand of dowry or commission of any acA TOn^ offence much iess at Chennai. Thatbemg^o, tfie l"glc;ofS®ction178 (c) ofthe Code relatjngtocommissionc^the^ffencescannot^ 11. in the case qf Sujate^^ v. Prashant Kumar JV!ukhene©2/th^N&nIbleAp6xCourthasheld^ In case of cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry iftlie offences continuing in nature then it may be tried by the Court having jurisdictjpn where part of cause of action arose in terms of sub-section (c) of Section 178 pf^the Code. Para 7 of the above judgment readsasunder:- \'' ^ ^,:' "Desplteservice foelng'/effected^on' the private respondents, no one ~ has appeared for any ofthe acccised respondents. Ws have taken jnto-consideration",me.^;oompga}nt^^ by the' appeiiant and. it appears to us that the c-ompjaint rey^als a continuing offence of 'maitreatment and humitiatton;m^ea\^o the appeliant in the. hands otaji the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions a!l tho respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had takenvpart. TherefQre, cSause (c ) of Sectlon 178 of the Code of Criminai Procedure ^ We, therefore, set aside the impugnedt order of the Hi@th iCourt and dlrect the leamed Chief Judjcia! Magisfrate, Raipurto^recee^ w the crimjna! oase. Since the maiter is pendtng fbr iong^ 9iep>s shouid be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeais are accordingiy a!!owed." 12. in the case of IVIohan Baitha and bthers vs. State of Biharand another3, the Ron'bte ApexlGaurt has he!d that if the offence compialnt has been commstted !n the jurisdiction ofdifferert areas then it may be tried by any Court where part of cause of action arose. 13. In the instant case, the non-appjicant No. 2 was subjected to cruelty at Ambikapur and also at Jashpur.. Cause of action partiy arose wlthin.the jurisdictio.n of Ambikapur and within :the jurisdiction of Jashpur,, The Court having jurisdictlon sltuated at Jashpur has taken cognizance, The Court having JurisdlctJori at Jashpur Js;competent,to take cognlzance of the offence and tried in terms of sub^ectiQn (c) and (d^ Section 178 ofthe Code. The Court situated at Jashpur has not committed any illegaJlty and continuance of proceeding before the said Courfis not abuse of process ofthe Court. B/- 14. Consequentiy, the^petJtion being without substance is liable to be dismissed anditisherebydismissed; r 1 Sd/- 1 T.P.Sharma i Judge >n997)5SCC30 ? (2001 )4SCC 350