Ravi Vishwakarma and Others vs Smt. Rita Vishwakarma and Another

D.C. Srivastava, J.—This petition, u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was admitted on a limited question as to whether the order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 21.3.1994 holding that the Varanasi Courts has jurisdiction in the matter is erroneous and deserves to be quashed.

The material facts are that Smt. Rita Vishwakarma filed a complaint under Sections 417, 406, 323, 504 and 498A, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioners. She examined herself and also her witnesses u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by observing that the offences alleged were committed at Durg. Hence the Court at Varanasi has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of their offences. Feeling aggrieved she filed a revision and the Sessions Judge, Varanasi under the impugned order held that part of the cause of action accrued at Varanasi inasmuch as part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Varanasi Courts, hence the order of the Magistrate was erroneous. After setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate, he directed the Magistrate to make fresh enquiry into the complaint filed by the complainant according to law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has read the copy of complaint, Annexure-T, and contended that the alleged offences, if any, were committed at Durg and not at Varanasi hence the order of the Sessions Judge is illegal and requires to be quashed. Careful scrutiny of the complainant indicates that number of incidents constituting the offences were no doubt committed at Durg, which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Varanasi Courts, yet it cannot be said that no offence was committed at Varanasi. It is averred in the complaint that three days after marriage, the complainant along with her husband came to her parent''s house in connection with marriage of her brother. Accused No. 2 also accompanied them. After the marriage of complainant''s brother was over, she requested the two accused to take her with them whereafter they told her father that unless Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) are given as additional dowry, she will not be taken back. Thus, the demand of additional dowry was made at Varanasi. It is, further, averred in the complaint that thereafter for six months the complainant stayed with her parents and inspite of sending intimation, nobody came from the Petitioners'' side for complainants ''Bidai''. Ultimately the complainant in the company of her maternal uncle went to Durg and thereafter she came to know about the conduct of the Petitioners. She was treated with cruelty at Durg and the process of cruelty continued. On 21st July, 1993, the complainant was sent along with her father by the Petitioners only with a Dhoti to her and again demand for additional money was made. On account of this torture and cruelty, the complainant fell ill mentally as well as physically. She also received a letter dated 8th March, 1993 in which some forgery was committed and some consent of the complainant was recorded. It is alleged that signatures of the complainant were obtained by the Petitioners at Durg under pressure on blank papers,

Section 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation to this section defines cruelty, Clause (a) of explanation provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, amounts to cruelty. This clause is not attracted in the instant case.

Clause (b) of the explanation provides that cruelty means harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her on any person related to her to meet such demand. This clause is prima facie applicable in face of the allegation of the complaint regarding demand of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) and in case of failure to meet the demand the Petitioners were not ready to keep the complainant with them. Cruelty may be mental or physical. Harassment and cruelty on the face of the complaint was a continuous process. Demand or unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) after marriage was made at Varanasi and thereafter the complainant was subjected to mental cruelty, with the result that according to her, she became sick mentally as well as physically. Receipt of letter at Varanasi added to the cruelty. On these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that Section 178, Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. It is provided in the section that whenever it is uncertain, in which (sic), local areas an offence was committed or (sic), an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may be enquired into or tried by the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

From what has been discussed above, it follows that the offences complained of consist of several incidents at Durg as well as at Varanasi hence the offence was partly committed at Durg and partly at Varanasi. Consequently, in view of Section 178, Code of Criminal Procedure Clauses (b) and (d), Varanasi Courts have jurisdiction to try the offences complained of. The impugned order, therefore, does not require interference or quashing. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.