Loknath Prasad, J.:— This revision application has been filed by the petitioners who were described as accused in Complaint case no. 503/95 filed by the opposite party no. 1 Smt. Chetna Saraf pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
2. For proper appreciation of this application, it can be said that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant, Chetna who is admittedly the married wife of petitioner no. 1 Bimlesh Kumar Saraf and other petitioners are father, brother and the wife of the brother of the husband-accused. Allegations were leveled by the married wife as against her husband and in-laws that at the time of marriage demand was made by way of dowry a Maruti car and Rs. 1 lakh in cash besides some ornaments to which the father of the complainant could not comply. However, on persuasion of others, marriage was solemnized. After the marriage when the complainant was in her matrimonial house at Muzaffarpur, she was occasionally tortured and even assaulted and she was not even provided with proper food and she was neglected awfully even at the time of giving birth to a male child. In-laws including the husband used to torture and subjected her to harassment, so that she can persuade her brother and other family members to meet the demand of the dowry. It has also been alleged that harassment was up to a great extent and had reached a peak and at one stage the complainant decided to end her life; but as she was pregnant she had not committed the suicide and ultimately on 17.7.90 she was driven out of the Matrimonial house and she was compelled to come to Katras to live in the house of her brother. The allegation is also that the husband filed a divorce suit which was dismissed as ex parte and efforts were made to patch up the matter which failed. Then the complainant was forced to file this complaint case u/s. 498A and also under Section 406 IPC at Dhanbad court because the complainant was residing within the jurisdiction of the Dhanbad Court. The learned C.J.M after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation by order dated 6.9.95 dismissed the complaint case by a very cryptic order that the entire allegation of harassment and torture was within the territorial jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur and so the Dhanbad court has no jurisdiction and further the complained offence u/s. 498A is barred by limitation because the complaint was filed after three years of the alleged occurrence. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal order of the complaint, the complainant preferred a revision being Crim. Rev. no. 154/95. Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, by a detailed order dated 10.7.96 set aside the dismissal order of the C.J.M and came to the conclusion that the offence u/s. 498A is a continuing offence and further the Dhanbad court has a jurisdiction to try the offence in view of the provision of Section 179 Cr. P.C and thus, directed the C.J.M to make a further enquiry Into the matter u/s. 202 Cr. P.C and then to pass order according to law. Being aggrieved by this order of the revisional court, the petitioners who are the accused in the complaint case preferred this revision.
3. Admittedly the petitioners are husband and in-laws of the complainant-wife and after the marriage the complainant was living in Muzaffarpur and at that very place the complainant alleged that she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and even she was driven out of the matrimonial house, so that she will persuade her brother and her brother will be compelled to fulfill the dowry demand of Maruti car and cash amount as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.S Dayal criticized the impugned order and contended that the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside mainly for the reason that the entire allegation as leveled in the complaint petition actually happened at Muzaffarpur and so only the Muzaffarpur court got the jurisdiction to inquire into and to try the offence and thus, the original order of C.J.M Dhanbad that he has no jurisdiction, is liable to be upheld. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the case law of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1993 Cr. L.J 707 Mr. Rajaram Venkatesh v. State of A.P
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party complainant contended that no doubt the torture, cruelty and harassment actually was made in Muzaffarpur in the matrimonial house of the complainant, but the complainant was subjected to such a torture and harassment and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and was living at Katras and thus, the mental torture continued and still persists even at Dhanbad (Katras) where she is residing and the harassment is also continuing there which is due to illegal action of the accused persons with a view to coerce her or the person concerned related to her to meet the unlawful demand of any property or valuable security and the offence as covered u/s. 498A is still continuing and virtually persisting. So in view of the special provision of Section 179 Cr. P.C the Dhanbad court has the jurisdiction to try this offence and thus, order of the revisional court is perfectly lawful.
6. Apparently in the complaint petition, allegation was leveled that the complainant was assaulted and tortured in various ways so that her relation may be compelled to fulfill the unlawful demand of dowry as alleged in the complaint petition and the complainant was also driven out of the matrimonial house on 17.7.90 and she was forced to live at Katras in the house of her brother. No doubt u/s. 177 Cr. P.C which is the jurisdiction chapter of the criminal trial, every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. But Section 179 Cr. P.C which is a special provision, only to meet such contingency and to mitigate the hardship of the weaker sections, a provision has been made that where an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and the 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. So the true test will be that the consequence must be an essential ingredient of the offence and something which forms part and parcel of it or completes the offence; meaning thereby that the consequence must be so inter-linked that the consequence is the direct result of the act and if the wife is compelled due to torture and harassment to leave the matrimonial house, then it is the direct result of the alleged action of the petitioners.
7. Furthermore the complainant though living at Katras within the jurisdiction of the Dhanbad court, she is under the constant agony and mental torture is also there and as she was forced to leave the matrimonial house, the harassment is continuing to compel her relation to fulfill the dowry demand. In that view of the matter, even though the complainant is in Katras, still she is constantly under mental agony and also under constant harassment and cruelty, so that the illegal demand of the petitioners can be fulfilled by her relation, in that view of the matter, for the illegal action done at Muzaffarpur, a direct consequence has ensued even at Katras and such offence is also a continuing offence because the complainant is continuously feeling harassment and torture though the mental harassment is also there.
8. A Bench of this Court in Arun Khanna v. State of Bihar reported in 1994 Vol. 1 PLJR 513 also took a similar view and in that case also the allegation of torture and harassment and also cruelty was leveled for the period when the wife was in Amritsar in her matrimonial house and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and to live at Dhanbad in the house of her parents and from there she filed a case u/s. 498 and 406 IPC and it was held by a Bench of this Court that the complaint case is maintainable before the Dhanbad court also in view of the provision of Section 179 Cr. P.C Furthermore the Calcutta High Court in the case of Motahar Hussain reported in 1995 C Cr. L.R (Cal) 43 also held that the offence u/s. 498A IPC is a continuing offence and the court where the complainant resides had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case. So far the case of Andhra Pradesh High Court, that is, Rajaram case (supra) as relied upon by the learned lawyer for the petitioner, is not applicable for the reason that in that case it was held that the allegation that her husband and sister in-law visited the place where the wife was residing, had not been substantiated. Moreover, the provision of Section 179 Cr. P.C as discussed above had not at all been considered in that case.
9. Under the circumstances and for the reason mentioned above, there is no two opinion that the Dhanbad court has also the jurisdiction to try this offence as complained by the complainant and the offence u/s. 498A Cr. P.C is a continuing offence in view of the allegation made in the complaint. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of the learned C.J.M passed in Complaint case no. 503/95 that he had got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case and the complaint is barred by limitation and the case was rightly remanded to the C.J.M Dhanbad for further enquiry.
10. Accordingly there is no merit in this application and so it is rejected.