Prabhat Ranjan Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

K.D. Shahi, J.—Vide order dated 17.10.1997, Hon''ble Mr. Justice R. N. Ray had referred this matter to a larger Bench for deciding the question of jurisdiction in the matter of cases falling u/s 498A, I.P.C.

Although the precise question has not been formulated by the learned single Judge but the question of law, which is apparent from his observations, is:

Whether a complaint u/s 498A, I.P.C. can be filed at the place where the cause of action arose or where the complainant resided.

We have heard Sri V. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Prabhat Ranjan Pandey and others and Sri S. P. Tewari the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State. In fact, there cannot be a dispute that ordinarily a complaint can be filed at the place where the cause of action arose. It has been provided in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Provisions of Section 177, Cr. P.C. cannot be read in isolation. A complete Chapter XIII has been provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

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 Anr., or

(c) Where an offence is 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.

The learned single Judge has not referred the provision of Section 179, Cr. P.C. which is also of great importance in the matter of trials of an offence u/s 498A, I.P.C. Section 179, Cr. P.C. runs as under:

Section 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.

If these sections are taken together, it may go to show very clearly that the offence shall be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed or if it was committed partly in one local area and partly in Anr., it can be tried by either of the two Courts. If the offence is continuing and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it can be tried by any of the Courts in which the offence was continued to be committed.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:

Section 498A. 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.

Explanation.--For the purposes 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.

It is specially provided in Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code that "in every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions". Thus omission, to provide food, residence and maintenance, is also an act of maltreatment, harassment and cruelty.

The essential ingredient of an offence u/s 498A is that the woman should be subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is settled principles of law that physical presence is not necessary to commit cruelty or harassment. A person may reside at any place but may still commit this crime to the woman residing at a different place. Mental cruelty is a species of such cruelty which may be committed without physically being present. Thus if a person goes on committing cruelty and harassment, it is continuing offence.

In this context, factual question involved in this case is to be seen. As per complaint, Annexure-1 to the present petition, the complainant Sunil Kumar is resident of village Lalloopur, P. S. Kotwali, district Mainpuri. His sister Anita was wedded on 26.1.1991 to accused Alok Ranjan of Shahjahanpur. Anita was residing at Shahjahanpur and was discharging the obligations of a married wife. Thereafter cruelty and harassment started. It is alleged in para 4 of the complaint that before two months of the complaint, Anita was turned out of the house after snatching off her ornaments and jewellery and she came to the house of her brother. Since Anita was residing at Mainpuri from before two months of the complaint, she was left there and was not called for ; she was not attended as a married wife, harassment continued even at Mainpuri. The complaint was, therefore, filed at district Mainpuri. As per allegations of the complaint, Smt. Anita was required to bring a colour T.V., Motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 20,000 from Mainpuri and she was forced to leave Shahjahanpur and to go Mainpuri for these demands. Thus, although major part of the offence took place at Shahjahanpur but the cruelty and harassment also continued at Mainpuri. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 178, Cr. P.C., the complaint could be filed at either of two places. It is to be remembered that consequences of residing as deserted wife at Mainpuri without any care and affection even maintenance, ensued at Mainpuri. Therefore, complaint could have been filed at Mainpuri also in view of the provisions of Section 179, Cr. P.C.

In the ruling in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee 1997 SCC 673, it has been held that where allegations of dowry, maltreatment and humiliation, etc. are at the house of her in-laws and there was also specific allegation that the husband had gone to the house of her parents and had assaulted her, Clause (c) of Section 178, Cr. P.C. is attracted because the offence u/s 498A is a continuing offence. The ruling in Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and others (XXXI)1994 ACC 809, is in the case of offence u/s 494, I.P.C. and although not in specific words but it is provided in this ruling as well that since the wife is an aggrieved person, she could have filed the complaint at the place of her residence, as held, although the second marriage of the husband took place at Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Similar question arose in the case of Vijai Ratan Sharma and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Anr. (XXV)1988 ACC 531 and the learned single Judge of this Court has specifically held that when the marriage took place at Ghaziabad, the girl was sent to Ghaziabad where she fell ill ; her husband did not even go there to see her, cruelty was committed at Ghaziabad as well, therefore, petition could have been filed at Ghaziabad and Ghaziabad Courts had jurisdiction to try the offence.

In view of what has been stated above, the question is replied as under:

In a case for an offence under Sections 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, complaint can be filed at any place where the cause of action arose or continued where the consequences ensued and if harassment and cruelty was continued from the house of her in-laws to the house of her parents, then the complaint can be filed at any of the two places at the sweet-will of the complainant.