P.S. Baskar Kumar and 3 Others vs State

R. Regupathi, J.—The Petitioners, A-1 to A-4 are accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in a case pending in C.C. No. 361 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee.

The case has been taken on file by the Respondent police and on conclusion of the investigation, the final report has been filed on 29.08.2005. The present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on 09.09.2006.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the first Petitioner is the husband of the complainant, the second and third Petitioners are the parents of the first Petitioner and the 4th Petitioner is the brother of the first Petitioner. They were all living at No. 10, Swami Bakthan Streeet, Ayanavaram, Chennai and the defacto complainant namely the wife of the first Petitioner is living at No. 6, Tilakar Nagar, Nanthavanamettur, Avadi, Chennai-71.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that after the marriage, the complainant was living with her husband along with the other Petitioners and subsequently, left to United States. When he returned back on 01.06.2005, there was a quarrel between the Petitioners and the de-facto complainant, in which the complainant was ill-treated, demanded dowry and an attempt to assault was made at the residence of the Petitioners. Subsequently, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home and reached her parental home at Avadi. After reaching Avadi, the complaint has been given to the Respondent police, which was entertained, resulting in the registration of the case.

It is submitted that on a perusal of the first information report and other relevant documents relied on by the prosecution, it appears that the entire occurrence took place at Ayanavaram, especially, at the residence of the Petitioners. In such circumstances, the Respondent police do not have any jurisdiction at all to register the case and investigate. On the contrary, even such a complaint is received, the same would have been transferred to the jurisdictional police, namely, Ayanavaram police. Apart from the incident which took place at the matrimonial home at Ayanavaram, the other incidence of ill-treatment and demand of dowry is alleged to have taken place at USA and at Tirupathi. At any rate, in view of the quarrel and ill-treatment, the defacto complainant has gone to the parental home and only after reaching there, the report has been given. In view of the registration of the case by the Respondent police, the proceedings are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee and if the case is entertained and investigated by the Ayanavaram police, it would have been enquired and the case will be pending only with the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

To substantiate the contention raised, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on a judgment reported in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another,

Respondent 2 (wife of one of the Appellants) filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Magistrate directed the police to investigate the case. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. When the matter stood thus, the Appellants filed an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court alleging that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint even if the allegations contained therein were accepted in toto as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned. The complaint itself disclosed that after 15.4.1997, the Respondent left the place N (where she was residing with her Appellant husband) and came to the city C. Since all the alleged acts as per the complainant took place at N, the Courts at C did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the other hand, Respondent 2 submitted that the offences were continuting in terms of Section 178(c) Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the Court at C had jurisidction to deal with the matter.

.. 19. when the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Per contra the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant submitted as follows: i) No doubt the parental home is situate within the jurisdiction of the Respondent police. Only at the parental home, the demand of dowry was made by the Petitioners and it was accepted by the parents of the complainant.

ii) Subsequently the marriage of the complainant with the first Petitioner was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Avadi.

iii) The marriage was performed at a marriage hall which is situate at Avadi.

iv) There was a quarrel in the marriage hall itself, wherein it is alleged that the dowry articles have not been displayed.

v) On the date of occurrence itself, after the occurrence at the matrimonial home, the first Petitioner travelled along with the complainant to the parental home of the complainant and even there, the threat and ill-treatment continued. It is at that place the first Petitioner demanded that the money in Fixed deposit must be given to him and further challenged and threatened the parents of the complainant. In such circumstances, it is submitted that several instances have taken place at the parental home to attract the jurisdiction of the Respondent police.

In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the provisions of Section 179 of Code of Criminal Code, which reads as follows:

Section 179: offence friable 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.

Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant thus submitted that therefore, the complaint can be entertained and investigated in any of such local area and the validity of the investigation entertained by the Respondent police cannot be questioned.

Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant in support of his case, relied on a case reported in Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and Another,

FIR cannot be quashed by the High Court u/s 482 on ground that police station officer of particular police station (Delhi in instant case) was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the F.I.R lodged by the Appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the Respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC arose at Patiala. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the Courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an Inestigating Officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that police station officer of particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that S.H.O., Police Station, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate.

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the de-facto complainant submits that the Respondent police has got jurisdiction to investigate and file final report and the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate cannot be questioned.

Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant further submits that on the date of occurrence, though the ill-treatment and the assault took place at Ayanavam, it is the case of the prosecution that the first Petitioner followed the defacto complainant in her car to Avadi and even there the threat continued and in such circumstances, it must be construed that not only the offence took place at one place, but at several places. Moreover, this incident which took place on the date of filing of the first information report cannot be treated in isolation, but all the background factors leading to the registration of the case may have to be taken into account. Moreover there are wealth of materials available to fix the jurisdiction with the Respondent police.

I have perused the materials available on record and heard the learned Government Advocate in this regard. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Bhudeb Chandra Karmakar Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2001) 9 SCC 226 , held as follows:

It however, appears to us that it has been specifically stated by the complainant that she is in a pitiable financial position and her brother being poor cannot support her. In such circumstances, even if the complaint had been lodged in the appropriate court in Calcutta, the Respondent could have made application for transfer of the said case to Bankura which is her usual place of residence so that she can effectively pursue the case on the basis of the complaint lodged by her. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that such application for transfer, if made, deserves to be allowed. Taking a pragmatic view of the matter, we feel that the complaint should not be dismissed on the score of jurisdictional impropriety. In the special facts of the case, we direct that it would be treated as if the complaint was presented to the appropriate court in Calcutta and the same has been transferred in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura. Such direction is given for ends of justice and to avoid dismissal of the complaint filed in Bankura for want of jurisdiction and filing another complaint in Calcutta and then to get the same transferred to Bankura for the reasons indicated

The case cited by the counsel for the Petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case, it was a new place, where no occurrence had taken place to attract the demand and only under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has come to a conclusion in such a manner. But on the contrary, in view of Sections 178 and 179 Code of Criminal Code, the Respondent police gets jurisdiction. Not only on that day, but several other previous occurrence took place at the parental home of the complainant. The marriage, registration of the marriage, quarrel at a marriage hall, subsequent threat and ill-treatment, took place within the jurisdiction of the Respondent police. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.