9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant at Gaya against her husband and his relatives are maintainable for lack of jurisdiction? Summary: Issue: Maintainability of Criminal Proceedings for Lack of Jurisdiction 2) The only issue for consideration in both the appeals is whether criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant herein at Gaya against her husband and his relatives are maintainable or not for lack of jurisdiction? Facts and Proceedings:3) Brief facts: (a) The appellant got married to respondent No.2 on 16.04.2000 at Gaya. Post-marriage, she faced harassment and torture from her in-laws for bringing less dowry. Her husband demanded an additional amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and her father's house at Gaya. Due to continuous torture, she lodged an FIR No. 66 of 2007 u/s 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya. (b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case and took cognizance of the offences, transferring the case to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for trial. The objection regarding jurisdiction was rejected by the Magistrate. (c) The accused challenged this order in the High Court of Patna, which quashed the proceedings at Gaya for lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appellant to file in the appropriate Court. (d) Aggrieved by the High Court's orders, the appellant filed appeals before the Supreme Court. Legal Provisions and Analysis:5) The issue pertains to territorial jurisdiction. The SDJM found that the Court at Gaya has jurisdiction, but the High Court reversed this decision. Relevant provisions include Sections 177-179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6) Section 177 states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 allows for inquiry or trial by a Court having jurisdiction over any of the local areas where the offence was committed partly or as a continuing offence. Section 179 allows for trial where the consequence of the offence ensued. Application of Law to Facts:7) The appellant's complaint detailed ill-treatment and cruelty at Ranchi and her forced relocation to Gaya. The complaint was registered as an FIR for offences u/s 498A and 406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The main offence u/s 498A IPC pertains to cruelty by husband and relatives. 8) Similar cases were considered by the Supreme Court in Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee and State of M.P. vs. Suresh Kaushal, where it was held that the Magistrate at the wife's parental place has jurisdiction due to the continuing nature of the offence. 9) The respondent's counsel argued that the Court at Gaya has no jurisdiction over the husband's relatives in the absence of any act at Gaya, citing Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police. However, this was distinguished based on the continuing nature of the offence. 10) The decision in Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan was also distinguished for similar reasons. Conclusion:11) The appellant's complaint indicated a continuing offence of ill-treatment and cruelty, with actions at both Ranchi and Gaya. Thus, u/s 178 and 179 of the Code, the Court at Gaya has jurisdiction. 12) The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, allowing the SDJM, Gaya to proceed with the criminal proceedings. The appeals were allowed, with no expression on the merits of the case.
|
