Ravinder Kumar Taneja vs Anjana Rani

S.C. Malte, J.

This petition is filed for quashing of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent, Anjana Rani filed a complaint under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Sonepat, and alleged that the petitioners had caused cruelty. The marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Sonepat on 27.11.1985. Thereafter the couple started cohabiting at Delhi. The allegations are that the inlaws of the respondent Smt. Anjana Rani used to harass and maltreat her on the ground of inadequate dowry and for extracting valuables from her and her parents. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 16.8.1991 and issued process against all the accused petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. Against that order present petition is filed.

The counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted before me that the alleged incident of cruelty had taken place at Delhi. Therefore, the Court at Sonepat (Haryana State) will not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a case pertaining to the offence that was obviously committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. He further brought my attention to the fact that respondent No. 1 had moved various police authorities at Delhi and the Dowry cell of the Delhi Police and the Women Organization at Delhi for ventilating her grievance. The Dowry Cell of Delhi Police after investigation found that the allegations made by respondent were not substantiated and not true. In that connection, he brought my attention to the text of the report thus submitted. It was also brought to my notice that prior to the filing of complaint by respondent, the petitioner No. 1 had already filed a divorce petition on 13.1.1989 in Delhi Court. It was submitted that the complaint now filed in the Court at Sonepat is nothing but by way of counterblast to the proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 1 and with a view of harass them.

On behalf of the respondent nobody appeared. I have, however, taken into consideration the reply by the respondent. In response to the question of jurisdiction, it was stated in para 12(a) that the cruelty had been caused to the respondent while at Sonepat inasmuch as the divorce petition was filed against her by making false allegations. It was contended that the part of the dowry articles are still lying with the petitioners.

It may be noted that prior to filing of the complaint in question, respondent had moved the Delhi Police and made grievance about the alleged cruelty. Delhi Police made enquiry and submitted the report, the relevant extract of which is reproduced at page 4 of the petition. It is in the following words:

"Forwarded with the report of ASI Santosh Kumari that the items of Istri Dhan has been restored to the girl including Rs. 9,000/ in lieu of remaining items of Istri Dhan. The evidence of cruelty could not be proved from the old tenants, mediator, new tenants and relatives of the girl side and neighbours. The complainant has submitted letters in her support which have been verified and found to be forged one. If approved may please be filed".

The above mentioned report was dated 15.9.1987. In the complaint the alleged incidents of cruelty have been mentioned. On reading it, I find that all those incidents have taken place while the respondent was in her matrimonial home at Delhi. In para 10 of the complaint she makes an allegation regarding the last incident when she was made to leave her matrimonial home at Delhi. She alleges that on 13.5.1987 accused 1 (petitioner No.1) assaulted her. The respondent claims that she was not in a position to sit properly because of the assault. Despite that, no medical aid was extended to her. As per the allegations in the complaint, on 13.5.1987, petitioner No. 1 came to Sonepat. Thereupon the brother of the respondent came to the house of the respondent at Delhi and noted the condition of his sister. Thereupon respondent was taken to Sonepat on 16.5.1987. Even according to the respondent, it was the last day when to she left the matrimonial home. Briefly stated, the text of the complaint clearly shows that since the time of marriage till the respondent left her matrimonial home under the circumstances alleged above, all these eventsIncidents had taken place at Delhi. Briefly stated, therefore, the alleged act of cruelty was committed at Delhi while the respondent was in her matrimonial home. Under these circumstances, the question regarding the territorial jurisdiction arises.

Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in enquiry and trial. Section 177 states that every offence would ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The subsequent sections pertain to list of cases wherein there is uncertainty as to the jurisdiction for variety of reasons and cases wherein the act is committed at one place and the consequences ensue in the other place. Briefly stated, therefore, on considering these provisions, it is obvious that the place of trial would be the Court within whose territional jurisdiction the offence was committed, unless the case falls under any of the other provisions regarding the jurisdiction. The offence under Section 498A IPC would be committed when the husband or the relative of the husband of the woman in question subjects the woman to cruelty. In this case the respondent was subjected to cruelty while she was at Delhi, and that was within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court situated at Delhi.

6A. In the reply filed by the respondent, it was contended that the act of cruelty has been committed against the respondent at Sonepat because petitioner No. 1 by filing the divorce petition by levelling false allegations against the respondent has caused the mental torture to the respondent at Sonepat. In my opinion that is farfetched submission. The divorce petition has been filed in the Delhi Court and the averments made therein would be a subjectmatter of scrutiny by that Court. Moreover, it may be mentioned that in the complaint filed by the respondent, she has not claimed that some averments in the divorce petition have caused mental torture and thereby cruelty was committed.

In the context of this, it may be recalled that on enquiry by the Delhi Police, the Delhi Police has arrived at a conclusion to which I have already made reference in the earlier part of this order. The divorce petition was filed on 13.1.1989. Thereafter the complaint under Section 498A was filed on 7.8.1990. It may further be recalled here that as per the complaint she had to leave the matrimonial home on 16.5.1987. Thereafter she seems to have made some grievance to the police, to which I have made reference above. The Delhi Police had submitted its report on 15.9.1987. Thus latest on 15.9.1987, or thereabout, it has been made quite clear that the Delhi Police was not in favour of initiating proceedings. If the complainant had some grievance regarding to investigation carried by the police and was not satisfied, it was expected in the normal course of events that she should have filed the complaint within reasonable short time since then.

In view of provisions in Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court at Sonepat lacks territorial jurisdiction over the alleged act of cruelty in this case.

In the result, the complaint case No. 18.1.91 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, is hereby quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent 1 complainant is at liberty to file a complain in the proper Court, if so advised.