2005 (3) TMI 749 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether The criminal case shall be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Tiruchirapally to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chennai who may either decide it himself or assign it to one of the Judicial Magistrates in Chennai?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Frivolous Allegations
2. Territorial Jurisdiction
3. Limitation under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Frivolous Allegations:
The first issue raised was that the allegations made were frivolous and without any basis. Specifically, the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy contended that the allegations in the F.I.R. did not make out any offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court examined the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of the charge-sheet and concluded that none of the alleged offences were made out against her. The court noted that she was the married sister of the informant's husband, living in Delhi, and the allegations of taunting and ill-treatment did not pertain to dowry demand or misappropriation of property. The court held that the allegations were insufficient to constitute harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relations to meet an unlawful demand. Consequently, the proceedings against Gowri Ramaswamy were quashed, and her appeal was allowed.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The second issue was whether the learned Magistrate at Trichy had the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The court observed that none of the alleged acts were done within the jurisdiction of Trichy Police Station and the Court at Trichy. The court referred to a recent decision in Y. Abraham Ajit and Ors. v. Inspector of Police Chennai and Anr., where it was held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be decided even before the trial. The court concluded that the offences alleged could not be said to have been committed within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Trichy. The alleged acts of cruelty and misappropriation mostly occurred in Mumbai and partly in Chennai. Therefore, the court ordered the transfer of the criminal case from the Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapally to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chennai. Additionally, the matrimonial case pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, was also transferred to the Principal Family Court at Chennai.

3. Limitation under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C.:
The third issue was whether taking cognizance of the alleged offences was barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. due to the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2). The court acknowledged that the last act of cruelty would be the starting point of limitation, which would have expired by 14.10.2001. However, the court noted that the complaint was lodged on 23.6.1999, well before the expiry of the limitation period, and the F.I.R. was registered on the same day. The delay in filing the charge-sheet and taking cognizance was due to the prolonged process of investigation and other legal proceedings. The court emphasized adopting a liberal approach in cases of matrimonial offences, as highlighted in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas. The court decided to extend the benefit of Section 473 Cr.P.C. to the informant-lady, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and ruled that there was no need to prolong the controversy on the point of limitation.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with the following orders:
- The proceedings against Gowri Ramaswamy were quashed, and her appeal was allowed.
- The criminal case was transferred from the Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapally to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chennai.
- The matrimonial case pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, was transferred to the Principal Family Court at Chennai.
- Both cases were directed to be decided expeditiously without avoidable delay.