1997 JTR(SC) 778
1997 2 AICLR 679 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 2465 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2401 ; 1997 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 198 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 1134 ; 1997 35 AllCriC 108 ; 1997 BBCJ(SC) 162 ; 1997 2 CCR(SC) 117 ; 1997 CriLR 445 ; 1997 CrLJ 2985 ; 1997 2 EastCrC(SC) 112 ; 1997 2 JLJ 59 ; 1997 5 JT 478 ; 1997 MLJ(Cri) 692 ; 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 198 ; 1997 3 RLW(Raj) 440 ; 1997 4 Scale 112 ; 1997 5 SCC 30 ; 1997 SCC(Cri) 673 ; 1997 2 SCJ 97 ; 1997 3 SCR 1127 ; 1997 2 KLT(Online) 1118 ; 1997 KHC 884 ; 1997 4 Supreme 448
1997(4) Supreme 448
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
G.N. Ray and G T. Nanauati, JJ.
Smt. Sujata Mukherjee - Appellant
versus
Prashant Kumar Mukherjee -Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 46 and 47 of 1991
Both decided on 30-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: S.K Gambhir, Advocate. For the Respondent: Anoop Chaudhary, Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Advocates for the State of M.P.
For the Respondent: KM.K Nair, and S.K. Mehta, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.178(c)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.506, S.498(a), S.506(b), S.323
(A) The Code of Criminal Procedure, sections 178(b) and 178(c), together with the Indian Penal Code sections 506, 498(a, and 323, govern the jurisdictional and substantive handling of offences that are committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or constitute a continuing offence spread across multiple localities. In this matter, the complaint alleging offences under these provisions highlighted that the acts of cruelty, harassment, and assault were part of a continuing campaign of mal-treatment, with certain acts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Raipur as a consequence of the broader pattern originating in Raigarh. The provisions therefore enabled the Raipur Court to exercise jurisdiction over offences that were, in part, committed within its local area and were an inseparable continuation of the wider series of offences, thereby validating the assumption of jurisdiction and the transfer of the case from the High Court.
(B) Key legal principles include that an offence which is committed partly within one local jurisdiction and partly in another, or which is a continuing offence extending across multiple localities, may be tried by any Court having jurisdiction over any of the areas in which the offence was committed. The complaint must disclose a continuing course of conduct forming part of the same series of acts rather than wholly isolated and disparate incidents.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Sujata Mukherjee, alleged that she was subjected to persistent dowry-related cruelty, humiliation, and assault not only at Raigarh by the husband and in-laws but also at Raipur, where the husband had entered the house of her parents and assaulted her. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur on the ground that the acts occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that, except for the husband, the complaint was not maintainable at Raipur as the acts were situated at Raigarh, and allowed the criminal revisions. The appellant contested this order before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted because the offence was a continuing one, committed in more than one local area, with the episode at Raipur being a sequence of the ongoing harassment. It therefore directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur to proceed with the criminal case, emphasizing the need to expedite the matter due to the long pendency.
Issues:
Whether offences alleged under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, partly committed in one local area and partly in another, can be tried by a Magistrate in a different local area under Sections 178(b) and 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the complaint disclosed a continuing offence extending to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Raipur.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an offence is alleged to be a continuing one and forms part of a series of acts extending across multiple localities, with one of the acts occurring within the jurisdiction of a particular Magistrate, the provisions of Sections 178(b) and 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enable such a Magistrate to assume jurisdiction over the case, even if other acts took place outside its territorial limits.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The High Courts order disposing of the criminal revisions is set aside, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur is directed to proceed with and expedite the trial of the case.
(A) The Code of Criminal Procedure, sections 178(b) and 178(c), together with the Indian Penal Code sections 506, 498(a, and 323, govern the jurisdictional and substantive handling of offences that are committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or constitute a continuing offence spread across multiple localities. In this matter, the complaint alleging offences under these provisions highlighted that the acts of cruelty, harassment, and assault were part of a continuing campaign of mal-treatment, with certain acts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Raipur as a consequence of the broader pattern originating in Raigarh. The provisions therefore enabled the Raipur Court to exercise jurisdiction over offences that were, in part, committed within its local area and were an inseparable continuation of the wider series of offences, thereby validating the assumption of jurisdiction and the transfer of the case from the High Court.
(B) Key legal principles include that an offence which is committed partly within one local jurisdiction and partly in another, or which is a continuing offence extending across multiple localities, may be tried by any Court having jurisdiction over any of the areas in which the offence was committed. The complaint must disclose a continuing course of conduct forming part of the same series of acts rather than wholly isolated and disparate incidents.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Sujata Mukherjee, alleged that she was subjected to persistent dowry-related cruelty, humiliation, and assault not only at Raigarh by the husband and in-laws but also at Raipur, where the husband had entered the house of her parents and assaulted her. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur on the ground that the acts occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that, except for the husband, the complaint was not maintainable at Raipur as the acts were situated at Raigarh, and allowed the criminal revisions. The appellant contested this order before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted because the offence was a continuing one, committed in more than one local area, with the episode at Raipur being a sequence of the ongoing harassment. It therefore directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur to proceed with the criminal case, emphasizing the need to expedite the matter due to the long pendency.
Issues:
Whether offences alleged under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, partly committed in one local area and partly in another, can be tried by a Magistrate in a different local area under Sections 178(b) and 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the complaint disclosed a continuing offence extending to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Raipur.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an offence is alleged to be a continuing one and forms part of a series of acts extending across multiple localities, with one of the acts occurring within the jurisdiction of a particular Magistrate, the provisions of Sections 178(b) and 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enable such a Magistrate to assume jurisdiction over the case, even if other acts took place outside its territorial limits.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The High Courts order disposing of the criminal revisions is set aside, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur is directed to proceed with and expedite the trial of the case.
ORDER
These two appeals are directed against the order dated 31.8.89 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposing of Criminal Revision No. 481 of 1989 and Criminal Revision No. 463/89. Criminal Revision No. 481189 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 respondents challenging the assumption of jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in the complaint made by the appellant for offences under Section 498A and 506B 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 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 has also come to the house of her parents at Raipur and had also assaulted her.
2. The respondents contended before the learned Chief Judicial 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 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 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 the appellant was not maintainable against the said other respondents at Raipur but such case was maintainable so for as the husband of the appellant, namely, Sri S.S. Mukherjee is concerned.
3. At the hearing of these appeals, Mr. Gambhir the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it will be evident from the complaint that the appellant has 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 isolated incident had taken place at Raipur. Hence, the criminal case filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur was only maintainable against the respondent-husband against whom some overt act at Raipur was alleged. But such case was not maintainable against the other respondents.
4. In this connection, Mr. Gambhir has drawn our attention to Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Particular clauses (b) and (c) of Section 178. Clause (b) envisages that" where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another" such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. Clause (c) contemplates that "where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas" then such offence can be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Mr. Gambhir has submitted that complaint made by the appellant Sujata Mukherjee discloses offence committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area. The complaint also discloses that the offence was continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Raipur, the learned Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted in such Court.
5. Mr. Anoop Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that Clause (b) of Section i78 is not attracted but if this Court is inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Gambhir that the offence was continuing one and the episode at Raipur was only a sequence of the continuing offence of harassment and ill treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of the Section 178 may be attracted. Mr. Choudhary has submitted that from the complaint it cannot be reasonably held that all the accused had committed the offence partly in one area and partly in another local area. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to apply clause (b) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our view, there is force in such submission of Mr. Choudhary.
6. Despite service being effected on the private respondent, no one has appeared for any of the accused respondents. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of mal treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long steps should be taken to expedite the hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
Appeal accordingly allowed.
*******************