LexAMARENDU JYOTI & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1079 AMARENDU JYOTI & ORS. V. STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2009) AUGUST 4, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ] A B Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction to try an offence - c Wife after residing at place 'D' with husband for a month started residing at parent's place at~·- Girls'fatherfiling FIR u/s. 498A alleging cruelty-Application u/s. 482 Cr.PC. by the husband seeking quashing of FIR since FIR did not disclose a continuing offence -Application dismissed by the 0 High Court holding that offence of cruelty continued, thus, was a continuing offence - On appeal, held: All overt acts, which are said to have constituted cruelty have allegedly taken place at place 'D' - Offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by s. 178 and 179 E Cr.PC. - Thus, going by the complaint, it cannot be held that the court at place 'A' has jurisdiction to try the offence since . the appropriate court at place 'D' would have jurisdiction to try the said offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 482, 17~ and179. After marriage, appellant no. 1-husband and respondent no.2-wife resided at place 'D' for a month. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 left for her parents place at F 'A'. Two years later, father of respondent no. 2 filed an FIR uls. 498A IPC at place 'A' alleging cruelty against G appellant no. 1 and his family. The appellants filed an application uls. 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court at place 'A' to try the offence alleged against the appellants when 1079 H 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A the incidents of cruelty alleged by respondent no .• 2 took plac:e at place 'D' and thereafter, respondent no. 2 left for her parents' at place 'A'. The High Court dismissed the application holding that the acts of cruelty continued and thus, the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence. B Hence the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is found from the F.l.R. that all the incidents alleged by the complainant in respect of the c alleged cruelty are said to have occurred at place '0'. The husband, elder brother-in-law and elder sister-in-law for bringing less dowry are said to have been uttered at place 'D'. Allegedly, arbitrary demands of lakhs of rupees in dowry have been made at place 'D'. The incident of 0 beating and dragging the respondent no. 2 and abusing her in filthy language also is said to have taken place at place 'D'. Suffice it to say that all overt acts, which are said t1) have constituted cruelty have allegedly taken place at place 'D'. [Para 7][1085-B-E] · E 1.2 The offence of cruelty'cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. The holding by the High Court that the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort having F been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone cannot be accepted. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court did not make rc~ference to any particular piece of evidence G regarding the threats ·said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, it cannot be held that the Court at place 'A' has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate H AMARENDU JYOTI v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH 1081 Court at place 'D' would have jurisdiction to try the said A offence. It is appropriate, in the interest of justice to permit the Court at place 'A' to proceed with the trial of criminal case arising out of F.l.R., in exercise of powers conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8, 9][1085-G-H; 1086-A-D] B Manish Ratan v. State of M.P 2006 (8 ) Suppl. SCR 226 : (2007) 1 SCC 262 ; Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee 1997 (3) SCR 1127 : (1997) 5 SCC 30 ; State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi1973 (3) SCR 1004: (1972) 2 SCC 890 ; Y Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 604 : (2004) 8 sec 100 ; Ramesh v. State of TN. 2005 (2) SCR 493:(2005) 3 sec 507 - referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 226 referred to 1997 (3) SCR 1127 referred to 1973 (3) SCR 1004 referred to Para 4,5 Para 5 Para 5 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 604 referred to Para 5 2005 (2) SCR 493 refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.