- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhura Ram And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Rajeshwari (the complainant) lodged a complaint on 4 September 2001 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellants (her in-laws). The Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC to Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, where FIR No. 246/2001 was registered. After investigation a challan was filed and charges were framed against the appellants for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
The appellants contested the territorial jurisdiction of the ACJM, asserting that all alleged acts occurred in Punjab. Their application was dismissed by the ACJM, and the dismissal was upheld first in revision by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and subsequently by the Rajasthan High Court in an SB criminal miscellaneous petition. The High Court held that cruelty under Section 498-A is a “continuing offence” and therefore triable where the complainant presently resides. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, possessed territorial jurisdiction to try offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC when all alleged acts of cruelty and misappropriation were said to have occurred in Punjab.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The entire cause of action arose in Punjab where the complainant lived with her husband and in-laws; hence, courts in Rajasthan lack jurisdiction.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100, which holds that a criminal court cannot try an offence when no part of it occurred within its territorial jurisdiction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100 | A criminal complaint must be tried only by a court within whose jurisdiction the offence or part of the offence was committed; residence of the complainant elsewhere does not confer jurisdiction. | The Supreme Court applied this ruling to conclude that, because all alleged acts occurred in Punjab, no part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, divesting the ACJM, Sri Ganganagar, of jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised the facts disclosed in the complaint and observed that every alleged act of cruelty and misappropriation took place while the complainant resided with her husband and in-laws in Punjab. Once the complainant left Punjab for Sri Ganganagar, no fresh act constituting the offences was alleged. Accordingly, no part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan.
Rejecting the High Court’s view that Section 498-A embodies a “continuing offence” that follows the complainant to her new residence, the Court held that the concept of a continuing offence cannot by itself create territorial jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. By applying the principle set out in Y. Abraham Ajith, the Court determined that the ACJM, Sri Ganganagar, lacked jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered that the proceedings before the ACJM be quashed and the complaint returned to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate court in Punjab if she so chooses.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, quashed.
Direct Effect: The complaint is to be returned to the complainant for filing in a court having territorial jurisdiction in Punjab. The decision reiterates and enforces the territorial jurisdiction principle articulated in Y. Abraham Ajith; it does not establish a new precedent but reinforces existing law that an offence must be tried where the cause of action arises, notwithstanding arguments of a “continuing offence.”
P.P Naolekar, J.— Leave granted.
2. The complainant, Rajeshwari lodged a complaint on 4-9-2001 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the appellants. The complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sent to Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for investigation on which FIR No. 246 of 2001 was registered against the appellants for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 147 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. Charges were framed against the appellants for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
3. The appellants made a prayer before the court that the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the offences as the cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the other court. The application was rejected. The revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar was also rejected.
4. The High Court dismissed the SB criminal miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellants holding that although the marriage was solemnised at Village Ramsara, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, and right from the marriage, the complainant and her husband Ravindra Kumar were living in Punjab with her in-laws, that her husband had died, and that she is now residing in Sri Ganganagar District in Rajasthan along with her maternal relations, but still offence under Section 498-A IPC being a continuing one, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred; and that the offence of cruelty being a continuing offence is still continuing within the local area of Rajasthan, where at present the complainant is living and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar had jurisdiction to try the case.
The Court has found that all the allegations regarding the offences charged with have been committed at the previous residence of the complainant.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the question involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100 wherein this Court has held that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed.
6. The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Alert