Prakash Pal and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.—By this petition, u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 169/09 pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur.

Case of the Petitioners is that Respondent No. 2 Smt. Hemlata Pal alleged that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and on a report being lodged at Mahila Police Thana, Raipur, offence was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that as the entire offence is alleged to have been committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Mahila Police Thana, Raipur. He further submits that the entire investigation was conducted without jurisdiction as in view of the provisions contained in Section 156(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, the police of Mahila Thana, Raipur could not have enquired into the alleged commission of offence on the report of Respondent No. 2 as the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the area itself did not have jurisdiction to try the offence, In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance upon the decision in the matter of Mst. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Gurudeep Kaur @Landi and Ors. 2007(3) CGLJ 95 and Pratap Chand Rathore and Ors. v. State of CG and Anr. 2006(1) CGLJ 101

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that there is no illegality in the investigation conducted by Mahila Police Thana, Raipur. It is further argued that as part of offence was committed at Raipur also, the concerned Magistrate does have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance upon filing of charge-sheet before it by Mahila Police Thana, Raipur alleging commission of offence u/s 498A, 34 IPC. Learned Counsel for Respondents further argued that in any case, it is a case of continuing offence inasmuch as due to cruelty committed by the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 was brought back to Raipur by her father where she is compelled to live and suffer agony. Learned Counsel for Respondents further argued that the police of Mahila Thana, Raipur was obliged under the law, which it did so, by registering a crime and make investigation and then filing charge-sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 relied upon the decisions in the matter of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and Another, (40 Crimes 157 Smt. Suman Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Jagdish and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, and Issa Venkateswarlu Gupta Vs. The State of A.P.,

From the charge-sheet, which has been placed on record by the Petitioners, it is divulged that FIR was lodged by the fattier of Respondent No. 2 in Mahila Police Thana, Raipur. In the FIR, it has been stated that Respondent No. 2 was married to Prakash Pal on 14.4.2000 and after 3-4 days, her husband left her at Rajnandgaon with his parents and went to Gujarat. After about a week, the in-laws started harassing and subjecting to cruelty by saying that fridge, T.V., cooler was not given in dowry. When Respondent No. 2 Hemlata came to Raipur, she informed her father where after her father did not send her back to Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, Prakash Pal, the husband, came to Raipur in October, 2000 and on he executing an agreement, Hemlata was sentalong with her husband. She was again left at Rajnandgaon where she was again subjected to cruelty. Finally, she was again taken back to Raipur by her father and then the report was lodged. From the diary statements of Hemlata Pal, Heeradau Sawarkar, Sadaram, Navneet Jain and Jyoti Chaudhari, it is revealed that several acts alleged in FIR and in the case diary statements constituting offence u/s 498A were either committed at Rajnandgaon or in Gujarat, where Respondent No. 2 was taken by her husband. In her case diary statements, Hemlata Pal has stated that after she was brought back to Raipur by her father, her husband came there in the month of October to take her back, he executed one ikrarnama on stamp paper that he will keep his wife along with him and she will not subjected to any more cruelty. It has also been alleged that there also, her husband teased her in the name of dowry and quarrelled. Thus, if the contents of the FIR and case diary statements are taken as it is all that has been alleged to have happened at Raipur is that her husband had come to take her back, executed an agreement and she had gone along with him to his place of work. All the allegations of committing cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry are alleged to have taken place either at Rajnandgaon or at the place where her husband was working and where the complainant Hemlata resided with him after feeing taken from Raipur in the month of October, 2000. Therefore, no part of offense is alleged to have been committed at Raipur. This conclusion is based on reading of the FIR and case diary statements as they are.

The submission of learned Counsel for the Respondents is that as the offence is continuing one, the sufferance of agony while residing at Raipur and the fact that the complainant-Hemlata was compelled to leave Rajnandgaon and reside along with her parents at Raipur would clearly show that the effect and impact of offence has taken place at Raipur also. This contention of learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. 2004(6) SC 207: 2004(3) Crimes 227 this Court in the case of Pratap Chand Rathore (supra) and Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra) has held that the offence u/s 498A is not a continuing offence.

This Court, in the aforesaid two decisions of Pratap Chand Rathore (supra) and Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra) dealt with similar situation where it was argued that the alleged offence of torture, cruelty or harassment did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the case was pending. The decisions in the case of Jagdish (supra) and Issa Venkateswarlu (supra) are based on the principles that the offence u/s 498A IPC is a continuing offence. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) and decisions of this Court in the cases of Pratap Chand Rathore (supra) and Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra), I am unable to uphold the submission of learned Counsel for Respondents that the offence u/s 498A is a continuing offence. Reliance placed on the decisions in the case of Smt. Suman Upadhyay (supra) is misplaced as in that case, the offence u/s 406 IPC alleging criminal breach of trust was also registered and the Court found that the act constituting breach of trust had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate whose proceedings were under challenge on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for Respondents have relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur (supra). In that case the Supreme Court laid down that at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. It was also held that after investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. The Supreme Court also held that if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the areas in which the crime is committed. The judgment of Supreme Court is not an authority for the proposition that where the investigation has been carried out by a police in respect of crime which was not committed within its territorial area yet the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the offence. Present is not a case where the matter is at the stage of investigation only and investigation yet to be completed. In the present case, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur and cognizance has also been taken.

In the result, proceedings arising out of Crime No. 75/1 of Mahila Thana, Raipur pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 169/09 so far it relates to the present applicants are quashed. As this Court has held in above discussion based on reading of FIR and case diary statements that the cruelty is alleged to have been committed at Rajnandgoan, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Satwinder Kaur (supra), the challan papers shall be returned to Mahalia Police Thana, Raipur who shall take necessary steps to forward the FIR and all concerned papers to the concerned police station of Rajnandgaon. Petition is consequently allowed with the observations as above.