Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Smt. Rupali Devi Petitioner v. State Of U.P & Another S

Allahabad High Court

Aug 3, 2011

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges two orders: one dated 28.5.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Deoria in criminal revision no. 22 of 2007 (Durga Prasad Baranwal v. State) and another dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Deoria in criminal case no. 2994 of 2006 (State v. Durga Prasad). The petitioner, who is the complainant in the criminal case, initially had respondents no. 2 to 6 summoned to face trial under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 506 IPC and sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria under section 177 Cr.P.C, which was rejected. However, the revisional court allowed the revision holding that the cause of action arose in District Mau and that the courts at Deoria lacked jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the transfer of the case to Mau. Both these orders are contested in this writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the courts at Deoria have territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal case under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 506 IPC and sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act when the cause of action partly or wholly arose in District Mau.
Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria to write a letter to the District Judge for transferring the case to Mau is legally valid.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Part of the cause of action arose in District Deoria where the petitioner resides, thus the Court at Deoria has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the respondents.
Mental cruelty is a continuing offence and since the petitioner resides in Deoria, the cause of action arises there as well.

Respondents’ Arguments

The entire alleged harassment and mental cruelty due to dowry demand occurred at Mau, where the husband’s family resides.
No part of the cause of action took place at Deoria; therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria had no jurisdiction.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the factual matrix from the FIR and noted that the petitioner was married in December 2006 and that all acts of harassment and mental cruelty took place at the matrimonial home in Mau. The petitioner’s residence in Deoria with her parents and the lodging of the FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Deoria did not establish jurisdiction in Deoria. The court referred to sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., which govern territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing that an offence ordinarily must be tried where it was committed. The court analyzed section 178 Cr.P.C. which allows trial in any local area where parts of the offence occurred or if it is a continuing offence committed in multiple areas. However, the court found no evidence that harassment occurred in Deoria, so the jurisdiction did not lie there. The court agreed with the Additional Sessions Judge’s finding that courts at Deoria lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria had no authority to transfer the case to Mau; rather, the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner remains free to file a fresh complaint in the competent court at Mau.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is dismissed.

The order dated 28.5.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge affirming lack of jurisdiction of Deoria courts is upheld. The order dated 27.8.2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria directing transfer of the case to Mau is declared illegal. The complaint is dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner may file a fresh complaint in the appropriate court at Mau. There are no broader precedential implications beyond the direct effect on the parties.

Show all summary ...

Hon'ble S.C Agarwal, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Deoria in criminal revision no. 22 of 2007 (Durga Prasad Baranwal v. State) as well as order dated 27.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Deoria in criminal case no. 2994 of 2006 State v. Durga Prasad under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Kotwali, Deoria.

The petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid criminal case. Earlier, respondents no. 2 to 6 were summoned to face trial under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. An application was moved on behalf of the accused under section 177 Cr.P.C challenging the territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, which was rejected. The respondents filed criminal revision, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the revisional court holding that the cause of action arose in District Mau and the Courts at Deoria had no jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 27.8.2007 for writing a letter to District Judge for transferring the case to Mau. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the cause of action arose in District Deoria where the petitioner resides and the Court at Deoria has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to try the respondents no. 2 to 5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 submits that from the perusal of the F.I.R itself, it appears that the whole story of harassment and mental cruelty etc. on account of demand of dowry is alleged to have taken place at Mau where the family members of the husband of the petitioner reside and no part of cause of action took place at Deoria and, therefore, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria had no jurisdiction to try the case.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mental cruelty is a continuing offence and the petitioner is residing at Deoria and, therefore, the cause of action arises at Deoria also.

Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C provides as follows :-

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. - Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial. -(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or

(d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

A perusal of the F.I.R shows that it was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Deoria on 17.9.2005 The contents of the F.I.R reveal that the petitioner was married to respondent no. 2 in December, 2006. Sufficient cash and dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, but the accused persons were not satisfied and started maltreating and harassing the petitioner in her sasural on account of demand of Rs. 2 lacs in cash and a Car. She informed her father about the same. Her father came to Mau and tried to pacify the accused persons, who remained adamant on their demand. On 12.5.1998, the petitioner gave birth to a son, who is presently 7 years of age. Even after birth of a son, the harassment of the petitioner continued. When she again became pregnant, the accused persons admitted her at Ladies Clinic of Dr. Saxena at Mau and forcibly got her aborted. In July, 2002, the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial home and the accused persons kept the male child with them. Her father took her to Deoria and continuously tried to pacify the accused persons. On 14.4.2005, at about 4:00 p.m, the accused persons accompanied by some responsible persons of Mau came to the house of the petitioner at Deoria for compromise and expressed their willingness to take the petitioner with them. After initial reluctance, the petitioner again went to her sasural, but after reaching there, she found that one stranger women was also living with the family of the accused and on inquiry, it was revealed that she was the second wife of petitioner's husband. When the petitioner protested, the accused persons beat her and confined her in a room and made her to sign some blank papers and thereafter she was turned out of their house on 27.5.2005 The petitioner came to Deoria and disclosed all the facts to her father.

A perusal of the aforesaid facts clearly indicates that all the harassment and mental cruelty took place with the petitioner in the house of the respondents no. 2 to 5 at Mau. No part of cruelty or harassment was done at Deoria. Even if it is assumed that the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, even then, it must be proved that the offence continues to be committed in more local areas than one, as provided in section 178 (c) Cr.P.C or the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area, as provided in section 178 (b) Cr.P.C In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents ever caused any harassment or maltreatment of the petitioner at Deoria where she is residing with her parents. Merely residing with her parents at Deoria does not create territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Deoria.

I entirely agree with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Courts at Deoria had no jurisdiction to try this case.

The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

The order dated 28.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed.

However, the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for writing a letter to the District Judge for transferring the case to Mau is absolutely illegal. C.J.M, Deoria or the Sessions Judge, Deoria has no power to transfer the case from one district to another district. After the revision was allowed and the application under section 177 Cr.P.C filed by the accused persons stood allowed, the Magistrate had no option, but to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh complaint in the competent court at Mau, if so desires.