SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 11-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 6 S.C.R. 83 
SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2011) 
APRIL 11, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.178(c) - Criminal 
proceedings - Maintainability of - Territorial jurisdiction -
Allegation made by wife that husband and in-laws subjected C 
her to ill-treatment and cruelty at her matrimonial home at 
Ranchi and that she was sent back to her parental home at 
Gaya by her husband with threat of dire consequences for not 
fulfilling their demand of dowry - Criminal proceedings 
initiated by appellant-wife at Gaya against husband and in-
D 
laws -
Whether the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya had the 
· jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case instituted by the 
appellant - Held, Yes - The alleged offence was a continuing 
one having been committed in a number of local areas and 
one of the local areas being Ga ya, the Magistrate at Ga ya had E 
the jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case -
The 
episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing 
offence of harassment and ill-treatment allegedly meted out 
to the wife - C/ause(c) of s. 178 was clearly attracted - Penal 
Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 406 rlw. s. 34 - Dowry Prohibition 
F 
Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4. 
The appellant-wife was married to respondent no.2. 
She was allegedly forced by the respondents-husband 
and in-laws to leave the matrimonial home at Ranchi and 
return to her parental home at Gaya. Subsequently, the 
G 
appellant lodged FIR at Gaya u/ss. 498A and 406 r/w. s. 
34 of IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 
1961 alleging that the respondents-husband and in-laws 
were harassing and torturing her for dowry. The Judicial 
83 
H 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate, Gaya took cognizance of the alleged 
offences. On appeal, the High Court held that the 
proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of 
jurisdiction and quashed the entire proceedings at Gaya 
with liberty to the appellant to file the same in appropriate 
s Court. 
In the instant appeals, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the criminal proceedings . 
Initiated by the appellant at Gaya against her husband 
C and in-laws were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 deals with jurisdiction of the criminal 
0 courts in inquiries and trials. From Sections 177-179 
CrPC, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence 
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within 
whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, 
when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an 
offence was committed or where an offence is committed 
E partly in one local area and partly in another or where an 
offence is a continuing one, and continues to be 
committed in more than one local area and takes place 
In different local areas as per Section 178, the Court 
having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is 
F competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 
makes it clear that if anything happened as a 
consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired 
into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction 
such thing has been done or such consequence has 
G ensued. [Paras 6] [88-G-H; 89-F-H; 90-A] 
2. In the Instant case, in view of the specific assertion 
by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty 
at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi 
H and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken 
SUNITA KUMAR! KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 85 
ANR. 
to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat A 
of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of 
dowry, it is held that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of 
CrPC, the offence in this case was a continuing one 
having been committed in more local areas and one of 
the local areas being Gaya, the Magistrate at Gaya has 
8 
jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted 
therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one 
and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of 
continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted 
out to the complainant. Further, from the allegations in the 
C 
complaint, it appears that it is a continuing offence of ill· 
treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in 
the hands of all the accused persons and in such 
continuing offence, on so

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