Case: Amarendu Jyoti &amp; Others Vs. State of Chhatisgarh &amp; Others

relied on the fact that the respondent no. 2 was made to abandon her husbands company because of cruel treatment and compelled to stay at Ambikapur; further, that the respondent no. 2 was subjected to cruelty by telephone calls over which she was threatened and demand of dowry was made. The letters written by respondent nos. 2 and 3 showing the sufferings of the wife at Ambikapur were relied on and the High Court noted that despite the respondents plight the appellant made no effort to take her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the High Court held that the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence and the court at Ambikapur had jurisdiction to try.4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application under Section 482 of the Code, the appellants have approached this Court by way of special leave to appeal. The main contention on behalf of the appellants was that the F.I.R. did not disclose a continuing offence. The offence, if any, was alleged to have been committed only at Delhi and there was no question of any offence having been committed after the respondent no. 2 went to stay at Ambikapur. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of this Court in Manish Ratan v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 262. 5. In Manish Ratans case (supra), in the complaint, the incident was said to have taken place in Jabalpur. The wife had left her matrimonial house and started residing at Datia. The Criminal Revision filed by the accused, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court at Datia, was dismissed opining that the offence was a continuing one, and therefore, the Datia Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance. The High Court held that the Court at Datia also has jurisdiction to try the case since the harassment to the wife continued at the place where she was residing with her father "since she was forced to live at her fathers place on account of the torture of the in-laws and as such it can safely be said that there was also a mental cruelty." This conclusion of the High Court was dubbed as curious by this Court since the High Court found earlier that "there is nothing in the complaint to show that any maltreatment was given to the appellant at Datia. The allegations, which I may repeat here, are that the maltreatment was given within a specific period at Jabalpur." After looking at the decided case on the point i.e. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 ; State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, (1972) 2 SCC 890 ; Y Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100 ; and Ramesh v. State of T.N., (2005) 3 SCC 507 , this Court held that the order of the High Court was unsustainable, and therefore, set it aside. It is not only that in the interest of justice, while setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court directed the transfer of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, where the wife was staying with her father to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur (vide para 18). 6. Relying on the Judgment of this Court in Manish Ratans case (supra), the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the offence in the present case cannot be considered to be a continuing offence, if any, and must be taken to have been complete at Delhi and no cause of action can be said to have arisen at Ambikapur. As must necessarily be, the application of law and the consequences must vary from case to case. 7. The core question thus is whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute a continuing offence. We find from the F.I.R. that all the incidents alleged by the complainant in respect of the alleged cruelty are said to have occurred at Delhi. The cruel and humiliating words spoken to the 2nd respondent/wife by her husband, elder brother-in-law and elder sister-in-law for bringing less dowry are said to have been uttered at Delhi. Allegedly, arbitrary demands of lakhs of rupees in dowry have been made in Delhi. The incident of beating and dragging the respondent no. 2 and abusing her in filthy language also is said to have taken place at Delhi. Suffice it to say that all overt acts, which are said to have constituted cruelty have allegedly taken place at Delhi. The allegations as to what has happened at Ambikapur are as follows: "No purposeful information has been received from the in-laws of Kiran even on contacting on telephone till today. They have been threatened and abused and two years have been elapsed and the in-laws have not shown any interest to call her to her matrimonial home and since then Kiran is making her both ends meet in her parental home.To get rid of the ill-treatment and harassment of the in-laws of Kiran, the complainant is praying for registration of an FIR and request for immediate legal action so that Kiran may get appropriate justice." 8. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We find from the F.I.R. that all the incidents alleged by the complainant in respect of the alleged cruelty are said to have occurred at Delhi. The cruel and humiliating words spoken to the 2nd respondent/wife by her husband, elderlaw for bringing less dowry are said to have been uttered at Delhi. Allegedly, arbitrary demands of lakhs of rupees in dowry have been made in Delhi. The incident of beating and dragging the respondent no. 2 and abusing her in filthy language also is said to have taken place at Delhi. Suffice it to say that all overt acts, which are said to have constituted cruelty have allegedly taken place at Delhi. The allegations as to what has happened at Ambikapur are aspurposeful information has been received from theof Kiran even on contacting on telephone till today. They have been threatened and abused and two years have been elapsed and thehave not shown any interest to call her to her matrimonial home and since then Kiran is making her both ends meet in her parental home.To get rid of theand harassment of theof Kiran, the complainant is praying for registration of an FIR and request for immediate legal action so that Kiran may get appropriate justice.We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said