Chitte Siddaiah and Others vs Chitte Sujatha and The State

G.V. Seethapathy, J.—This petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 to A.6 in PRC No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddutur, Kadapa district.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the records.

The first respondent herein gave a report to the police against the petitioners-A.2 to A.6 and her husband-A.1 alleging offences under Sections 307, 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Proddutur I Town Police registered it as Cr. No. 69 of 2007 and after due investigation, police filed a charge sheet against all the accused before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in PRC No. 20 of 2007 and issued process against the accused.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by A.2 to A.6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged harassment of the complainant was at Nandyal in Kurnool district and the learned Magistrate of Proddatur has no jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action took place within his jurisdiction. He would further contend that no specific allegations are made against the petitioners-A.2 to A.6 and they are falsely implicated.

A.2 and A.3 are the parents of A.1, A.4 and A.5 are married sisters of A.1 and A.6 is the elder brother of A.1. A.2, A.3 and A.5 are residing at Nandyal and A.4 is stated to be resident of Hyderabad. According to the complainant, her marriage took place on 22.5.2003 at Proddatur and at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash besides gold was given and shortly after marriage, A.1 started demanding the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and A.2 to A.6 have actively instigated and supported A.1 in making the said demand. It is further alleged that in the year 2003, A.1, A.2 and A.6 have attempted to kill the complainant by leaking the gas in the kitchen and again made an attempt to kill her by throttling her neck while A.3 caught hold of her neck and A.6 caught hold of her legs. It is further alleged that in spite of efforts made through mediators, the accused persisted in their demand for additional demand and continued the physical and mental harassment of the complainant.

A perusal of the complaint and also charge sheet would go to show that very serious and grave allegations are made against the accused pertaining to the alleged physical and mental harassment she was subjected to over the demand of additional dowry, besides, repeated attempts made on her life by the accused. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations would come out only after necessary evidence is adduced at the time of the trial. The contents of the complaint and also record of investigation culminating into charge sheet, clearly discloses a prima-facie case against the petitioners, warranting further proceedings against them.

The marriage of the complainant with A.1 took place at Proddatur. May be the complainant and A.1, after the marriage resided for some time at Mahaboobnagar, and subsequently, at Nandyal and after she was necked out of the house by A.1, she started taking shelter at her parents house at Proddatur, having no other go. The fact that the complainant had to take shelter at her parents house owing to the insecurity, because of the alleged physical and mental torture, she was subjected to, over the demand of additional dowry by the accused, does not mean that she got released or liberated from the harassment by the accused with her shifting to Proddatur.

In Hyder Mohiuddin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, this Court held as follows:

If a married woman is appears to stay at her parents house in order to meet his illegal demands of her husband or relatives of her husband, naturally she suffers mental agony even during her stay at her parents house and hence, it is a continuing offence and continues during her stay at her parents house.

In Valluri Ramachandra Rao and Ors. v. State of A.P. 2007 (1) ALT (Cri.) 293 (AP) this Court reiterated the principle laid in the above decision.

In Basheer Moazam v. State of A.P. 2005 (2) ALT (Cri.) 463 (AP) this Court held as follows:

The three provisions, namely, Sections 177 - 179 of Cr.P.C., indicate that in the case of offence u/s 498A of IPC, the case can be filled by the aggrieved wife/woman at a place where the demand was made for dowry or property thereby causing cruelty and also at a place where the woman was forced to live that is to say, the consequence that ensued as a result of cruelty. To give an illustration, after marriage if the wife is subjected to the cruelty by the husband or by his relatives at one place and due to such harassment the wife is forced, to go either to her parents place or a friend''s place, there is nothing in law which prohibits the wife to initiate criminal action at a place where she is forced to live as a consequence of being subjected to cruelty.

In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, it cannot be held that merely because the complain was forced to take shelter at her parents'' house at Proddatur as a consequence of the cruelty, she was allegedly subjected to by the accused, she would not be entitled to give a complaint to the police at Prodatur or that the learned Magistrate of Proddatur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The harassment of the complainant must be deemed to have been continued even after she shifted to her parents house at Proddatur, which she was forced to only to escape from the alleged acts of cruelty by the accused, she cannot be expected to file a complaint at an alien place Nandyal and fight her legal battle against the accused, who are in fact, residing at Nandyal. The valuable rights of a helpless and hapless victim woman and her fight for justice cannot be defeated by narrow interpretation of the provisions of law relating to cause of action and jurisdiction by resorting to a pedantic and technical approach.

In the circumstances and in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Court of learned Magistrate at Proddatur has no jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to invoke inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioners. It is an established proposition of law that the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have to be invoked with care and caution and circumspection and that too, in a very deserving case. The present case on hand is not one, where the said inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.