MANISH RATAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANISH RAT AN AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF M.P. AND ORS 
NOVEMBER I, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 177 and 178-Jurisdiction 
of court to take cognizance of offence, where no part of cause of action has 
C arisen-Held: Every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by 
Court within whose jurisdiction it is committed-On facts, no criminal case 
alleging mal-treatment and dowry demand registered at the place of incident 
but another local area-High Court holding that offence being a continuing 
one, Court where no part of cause of action arose has the jurisdiction, not 
correct-Offence cannot be a continuing one only because complainant was 
D /meed to leave her matrimonial home-Jn the interest a/justice matter pending 
transferred to the court where cause of action has arisen-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Article 142. 
Appellant No. 1 and rf:spondent No. 2 were living at their matrimonial 
home at Jabalpur. Respondent No. 2's father lodged a complaint alleging that 
E the appellant have been ill-treating his daughter and demar·ding dowry. It is 
alleged that the next month respondent No. 1 was forced to leave her 
matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged FIR against appellants at local area-
Datia and the incident was said to have taken place at Jabalpur. Criminal case 
was registered. Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Datia Court. 
F Criminal revision application was dismissed on the ground that the offence 
being a continuing one, Datia Court had jurisdictivn to take cognizance of 
the offence. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Com1 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ordains 
H 
that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within 
whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Interpretation of the term 
"ordinarily" will have to be considered having regard to the provisions 
contained in Section 178 of the Code. (229-F-H] 
226 
MANISHRATANv. STATEOFM.P. [S.B. SINHA,J.] 
227 
1.2 Clause (c) of section 178, where offence is continuing one, and A 
continues to be committed in more local areas than one, has been applied in 
the instant case. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits 
of the jurisdiction of the Datia Court Only because the complainant was forced 
to leave her matrimonial home, an offence cannot be held to be a continuing 
one. No criminal case was lodged at Jabalpur. The investigation of the case is B 
complete. Thus, order of the High Court is set aside. Interest of justice would 
be subserved, by transferring the criminal case pending in Court of Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, 
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. 
[230-A-B; 233-A-C] 
State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Anr., [1972) 2 SCC 890; Y. C 
Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., [2004] 8 
SCC 100 and Ramesh and Ors. v. State ofT.N, [2005] 3 SCC 507, relied on. 
Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, [19971 5 SCC 
30, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 
2000. 
D 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 1. 9 .1998 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 1998. E 
S.S. Khanduja and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellants. 
Vibha Datta Makhija and Uma Datta [N.P.] for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Application of Sections 177 and 178 of Code of Criminal 
Procedure (Code) is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment 
and order dated I.09. l 998 pas~ed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 
Cr!. Revision No. 98 of 1998. 
F 
Appellant No. I was married with Meena, Respondent No. 2 herein at G 
Niwari, Distt. Tikangarh. They were living at their matrimonial home at Jabalpur. 
Allegedly, a complaint was lodged by father-in-law of Appellant No. I with 
the police station, Jabalpur on 19.04.1997 alleging that the appellants have 
been ill-treating his daughter and demanded dowry. 
Meena allegedly lodged another First Information Report against the H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A appellants at the Police Station, Datia on 25.05.1997 whereupon a criminal case 
was registered. In the said complaint, the place of incident was said to have 
taken place in House No. 151, Adarsh Nagar Narbada R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.