RUPALI DEVI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
       RUPALI DEVI
    v.
  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2012)
      APRIL 09, 2019
         [RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
                SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,  JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Jurisdiction – Whether in a case
where cruelty had been committed in a matrimonial home by the
husband or the relatives of the husband and the wife leaves the
matrimonial home and takes shelter in the parental home located at
a different place, the courts situated at the place of the parental
home of the wife have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under
s.498A – Held: In the normal course, it is the court within whose
local jurisdiction the offence is committed that would have the power
and authority to take cognizance of the offence in question – Under
s.179, Cr.P.C., if by reason of the consequences emanating from a
criminal act, an offence is occasioned in another jurisdiction, the
court in that jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance
– What is to be really determined is whether the exception carved
out by s.179 Cr.P.C. would have any application to confer
jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the parental
house of the wife is located – The provisions contained in s.498A
undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-
being of the wife –  Even the silence of the wife may have an
underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony –
Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly
attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the
matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the
acts committed at the matrimonial home – Such consequences, by
itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental
home where she has taken shelter – The adverse effects on the mental
health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed
in the matrimonial home would  amount to commission of cruelty
within the meaning of s.498A at the parental home – The
consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 577
577
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home –
This is the kind of offences contemplated under s.179 Cr.P.C –
Therefore, the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after
leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of
acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would,
dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain
a complaint alleging commission of offences under s.498A – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.177, 178, 179 – Crime against
women – Evidence Act, 1972 – s.113A.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –
Object behind its enactment – discussed.
Words and phrases: Cruelty – Meaning of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1   Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contemplates that “every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed”.  Therefore, in the normal course, it is the court within
whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed that would have
the power and authority to take cognizance of the offence in
question.  [Para 6][584-D]
1.2  Section 178 creates an exception to the “ordinary rule”
engrafted in Section 177 by permitting the courts in another local
area where the offence is partly committed to take cognizance.
Also if the offence committed in one local area continues in
another local area, the courts in the latter place would be
competent to take cognizance of the matter.  Under Section 179,
if by reason of the consequences emanating from a criminal act
an offence is occasioned in another jurisdiction, the court in that
jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance.  Thus,
if an offence is committed partly in one place and partly in another;
or if the offence is a continuing offence or where the consequences
of a criminal act result in an offence being committed at another
place, the exception to the “ordinary rule” would be attracted
and the courts within whose jurisdiction the criminal act is
committed will cease to have exclusive jurisdiction to try the
offence. [Para 8][585-A-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890 :
[1973] 3 SCR 1004  – relied on.
2.  Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.