RADHA & ORS vs STATE OF M P & ORS

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case no. 449/2014 under Section 498-A of IPC.

It is contended that, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Respondent no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of applicant no. 6. She left her matrimonial home without sufficient reason. Hence, the applicant no. 6 preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court at Hamirpur for restitution of conjugal rights. Notice was served to respondent no. 1. Then the respondent no. 1 preferred a private complaint before the Court of JMFC, Nowgaon, District Chhattarpur (MP), stating that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by the applicant.

Learned Trial Court after examination of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizace under Section 498-A of IPC vide order dated 07.07.2014.

The question of jurisdiction has been contested by the petitioners on the ground that alleged cruelty has been committed at the matrimonial home situated at Hamirpur (UP). It is contended that proceedings before the Court of JMFC, Nowgaon, District Chhattarpur (MP) is liable to be quashed due to want of jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case of Y.Abraham Ajit Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported as, 2004 AIR(SC) 4286 and Mohanlal & Ors. Vs. State,1991 1 Crimes(HC) 271, it was held that : "The offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not a continuing offence by its own implication. But if an offence is commenced within the jurisdiction of another Court, the provisions of Section 178 of the Code are attracted and in that situation the case can be proceeded at either place."

It is true that the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not a continuing offence by its own implication. In Para 7 and 9 of the complaint, the complainant alleged that respondent no. 1 was residing at Harpalpur (MP). Demand of dowry was also made by the applicant at the Panchayat held at Harpalpur. Hence, JMFC Court Nowgaon has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

In a similar case reported as Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, 1997 5 SCC 30, the Apex Court had occasion to consider the point of jurisdiction. There were allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 498- A, 506 and 323 of IPC. On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demand was made earlier in the place where complainant was residing and was assaulted, it was held that in that factual background clause (c) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. is attracted.

In case of State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran, 1973 AIR(SC) 908 the Hon ''ble Supreme Court has held that : "A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance, occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. "

In Ranvijay Prasad Deo Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 CrLJ 3553 (3556) (Jhar) and Indubala (Smt.) Vs. State of UP, 2003 4 Crimes(HC) 391, in similar situations, similar view has been adopted by different courts.

Looking to the record, allegations made by the complainant and facts regarding panchayat have been matter of evidence. At this preliminary stage, it cannot be held that no demand was made or cruelty committed at Harpalpur.

In case of mixed question of law and fact, the inherent powers need not always be invoked. In case of Maheshwari Oil Mill Vs. State of Bihar, 1978 CRLJ 659 and Aluminum Industries Ltd. Vs. Enforcement Officer, it was held that : "The High Court will not enter into equiry of disputed facts and thereafter hold in favour of the accused. Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash a complaint. In other words - disputed question of facts cannot be decided in petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."

Hence, on the above discussion and principals laid down by the Hon''ble Courts and in the light of provision of Section 178 Cr.P.C, this petition is dismissed.