Anil Kumar Airi vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

This revision is against the order of framing the charge under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC. The case had been initiated on the basis of First Information Report recorded in the hospital at Nakodar, District Jalandhar. The papers before me indicate that on 27.3.1995 a report from Nakodar hospital was sent to the police and it was informed that one lady named Veena wife of Anil Kumar has been admitted in the hospital who has suffered injuries due to some chemical application. ASI Sukhwant Singh arrived in the hospital and recorded her statement running into about six typed sheets as per Annexure P1. On the basis of that, investigation started and chargesheet against four accused was submitted. Briefly stated, the allegations are that at the time of wedding itself cash gold and dowry articles were given. However, the accused had grievance that it was not adequate. As usual, harassment started to the wife. The further grievance is that, again an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was paid on 8.3.1995 at Nakodar. Again on 26.3.1995 there was illtreatment. On that day, allegedly, the motherin law of the complainant tried to administer forcibly some substance known as `Harpic'' which is used for cleaning the toilets. The complainant resisted. However, some portion of it passed in the mouth of the complainant. As a result of which she started vomitting. It is alleged that the said substance had caused injuries on her face. Allegedly, thereafter Anil Kumar, the husband of the complainant and the motherinlaw and brotherinlaw of the complainant took the complainant in a car and proceeded towards Nakodar. On way to Nakodar, they threatened the complainant that if she raised cry, she would meet dire consequences. All these persons arrived at the house of the parents of the complainant. There, allegedly, a demand of Rs. 5 lacs was reiterated by the accused. On seeing the condition of the complainant, the father of the complainant along with other neighbours brought her to the hospital at Nakodar. There a detailed complaint was recorded by ASI Sukhwant Singh.

In the trial Court a charge was framed as stated above. Now the grievance before me is that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. In that respect my attention was invited to a part of the complaint which pertains to the reiterating of the demand of Rs. 5 lacs. That incident of dated 26.3.1995 has already been referred by me in the earlier part of this judgment. While making that demand these accused, allegedly, told to the parents of the complainant that if they fail to meet such demand, they would desert the complainant, and leave her in the house of her parents. Since one of the incidents pertaining to offence under Section 498A IPC took place in the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Jalandhar, in my opinion, that Court is justified in entertaining the case. The counsel for the respondents brought my attention to a case of Smt. Sujata Mukerji v. Prashant Kumar, 1997(3) RCR (Crl.) 198(SC) : 1997(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 679 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that offence under Section 498A IPC was a continuing offence inasmuch as a part of it had taken place in one local area and some part of it had taken place in the other local area, being at Raipur, therefore, the Magistrate at Raipur had jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case. In this case, it clearly appears that the demand for the money and the articles was being put forth right from the beginning of the wedding and had been repeated from time to time; and in order to extract those articles and money, the wife was being subjected to harassment and assault. A part of the harassment took place at Nakodar inasmuch as on 26.3.1995 after an attempt to administer the chemical known as `Harpic'' she was taken in a car and brought to the parents'' house at Nakodar where demand for money was reiterated at the point of threat that failing to meet that demand, they would desert the complainant and leave her in the house of her parents. In my opinion, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalandhar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

The other point raised before me pertained to the grievance that the documents produced by the accused to show that at the relevant time they were not at the place of incident, but were at elsewhere, were not taken into consideration. It was submitted that at the time of framing the charge, all the documents should have been taken into consideration. In support of that, my attention was invited to the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and others, 1996(3) RCR (Crl.) 411 (SC) : 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases 766. In so far as that legal position is concerned, there would not be a second opinion in view of the clear position indicated in Section 239 Cr.P.C. This is a case to which Part A of Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. would apply. Section 239 Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate while framing the charge should consider the documents placed by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. make such examination as may be necessary, and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he shall proceed to consider the framing of the charge. In this respect the grievance was that the documents showing alibi of the accused have not been taken into consideration. The counsel for the petitioners, however, was not able to show from the revision petition that such a grievance was raised by him in the trial Court. He, however, submits that these documents were with the police during investigation and these were also in the file. Nonetheless, if the accused wanted to raise such a contention at the time of framing of the charge, it was expected of them to bring the attention of the Court at that time itself. It may be mentioned that accusedpetitioner No. 1 is a lawyer himself. They had engaged a counsel in the Court at Jalandhar. At any rate, in respect of plea of alibi, the accused will have still an opportunity to establish it by leading proper evidence in the Court.

The trial Court has framed the charge under Section 323 IPC. The allegations are that some corrosive substance that had caused blisters on the face was tried to be administered to the complainant and it had caused injuries. The trial Court, therefore, would consider whether the charge under Section 324 IPC could be framed. With these observations, this petition stands dismissed.