SMT. SUJATA MUKHERJEE versus PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1127 · Decided: 30-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SUJATA MUKHERJEE 
A 
v. 
PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE 
APRIL 30, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S. 178(c}--Complaint by wife against husband and other members of 
his family for dowry demand and maltreatment-Complaint filed in 
C 
Raipur-Accused contending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur that 
case at Raipur was not mailltainable as alleged offence was committed at 
Raigarli--Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur refusing to transfer the case from 
Raipur to Raigarh--Held-Complaillt reveals continuing offence-Clause (c) 
of s. 178 is clearly attracted-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur to proceed with 
the case. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
46of1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.89 of Madhya Pri!desh 
D 
High Court in Cr!. Revision No. 463 of 1989. 
E 
With 
Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order 30.8.89 of the Madhya Pradesh High F 
Court in Cr!. Revision No. 481 of 1989. 
S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
Anoop Choudhary, Sakcsh Kumar and Uma Nath Singh for State of 
M.P. for the Respondent. 
G 
K.M.K. Nair and S.K. Mehta for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These two appeals are directed against the order dated 31.8.89 H 
1127 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposing of Criminal Revision 
No. 481 of 1989 and Criminal Revision No. 463/89. Criminal Revision No. 
481/89 was preferred by all the five respondents against refusal by the 
learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Raipur to transfer the case from Raipur 
to Raigarh. Criminal Revision No. 463/89 was preferred by four of the 
B 
respondents challenging the assumption of jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Raipur in the complaint made by the appellant for offences 
under Section 498 A and 506 B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The 
respondents are the husband, parents-in-law and two sisters-in-law of the 
appellant Sujata Mukherjee. The gist of the allegation of the appellant, 
Sujata Mukherjee is that on account of dowry demands, she had been 
C maltreated and humiliated not only in the house of the in-laws at Raigarh 
but as a consequence of such events, the husband of the appellant had also 
come to the house of her parents at Raipur and had also assaulted her. 
The respondents contended before the learned Chief Judicial 
D Magistrate Raipur that the criminal case was not maintainable before the 
said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate because the cause of action took 
place only at Raigarh which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the 
learned Magistrate at Raipur. A prayer was also made to quash the 
summons issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by entertaining 
the said complaint of Smt. Mukherjee. As the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
E was not inclined either to quash the summons or to transfer the criminal 
case to the competent Court at Raigarh, the aforesaid criminal revision 
petitions were filed; one by all the five respondents and another by four of 
the respondents excluding the husband presumably because there was 
specific allegation against the husband that the husband had also gone to 
F 
Raipur and had assaulted the appellant and as such husband could not 
plead want of territorial jurisdiction. Both the said criminal revisions case 
have been disposed of by a common order dated 31.8.89 by the High Court. 
The High Court having held that excepting against the husband, the 
complaint against other respondents related to the incidents taking place 
at Raigarh. Hence, the criminal case on the basis of complaint made by 
G the appellant was not maintainable against the said other respondents at 
Raipur but such case was maintainable so far as the husband of the 
appellant, namely Sri S.S. Mukherjee is concerned. 
At the hearing of these appeals, Mr. Gambhir, the learned counsel 
H appearing for the appellant has submitted that it will be evident from the 
S. MUKHERJEE v. P .K. MUKHERJEE 
1129 
complaint that the appellant lias alleged that she had been subjected to 
cruel treatment persistently at Raigarh and also at Raipur and incident 
taking place at Raipur is not an isolated event, but consequential to the 
series of incidents taking place at Raigarh. Therefore, the High Court was 
wrong in appreciating the scope of the complaint and proceeded on the 
footing that several isolated events had been place at Raigarh and one 

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