Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 49
In a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside criminal proceedings against several in-laws after finding that the trial court in Jagdalpur lacked territorial jurisdiction. Justice Dhirendra Mishra held that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand under Section 498A of the IPC related to events in Bangalore, not Jagdalpur, so the case could not continue there.
The FIR in Crime No. 20/2001 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, on January 15, 2001, following a written complaint by the wife. She married Jayantilal Jain on June 6, 1991, and gave birth to a daughter on June 16, 1992. The couple lived in Raipur for several years before moving to Bangalore in 1998. According to the complaint, demands for money were made in Bangalore and tensions escalated there. The record showed a complaint dated August 27, 1999, at the Women Police Station, Alsur Gate, Bangalore, where both spouses appeared. On September 4, 1999, the matter was noted as resolved after the husband promised to live with and maintain his wife and daughter at Jagdalpur, although the promise was not fulfilled.
The applicants argued that every allegation of harassment or demand occurred in Bangalore and that the Jagdalpur court therefore had no authority to try them under Section 177 CrPC. They relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004), which clarifies that criminal courts can only try offences committed within their territorial limits and that Section 498A is not a continuing offence merely because the spouse resides elsewhere later.
Justice Mishra agreed. After reviewing the charge sheet, witness statements, and documents such as the Bangalore police papers and family correspondence indicating the couple resided together in Bangalore, the court found no specific allegation of cruelty or dowry demand within Jagdalpur’s jurisdiction. On that basis, and following Y. Abraham Ajith, the court held that no part of the cause of action against the in-laws arose in Jagdalpur.
The proceedings in State of C.G. v. Jayantilal and Others, arising from Crime No. 20/2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, were quashed as against the applicants. The judge clarified that the complainant remains free to file a complaint before the appropriate court in Bangalore, which would then deal with it according to law.
This order underscores a recurring threshold issue in domestic cruelty prosecutions: where allegations span multiple cities, prosecutors must lay jurisdiction with the court where the alleged acts occurred. It also reiterates that mere residence of the complainant in a different city does not convert past acts into a continuing offence for jurisdictional purposes.
Case Details : Misc. Cr. Case No. 2208 of 2003, Pratap Chand Rathore and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (28.06.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prafull Bharat, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: J.D. Bajpai, Govt. Adv. for Non-applicant No. 1
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 177; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 498A
Cases Referred:
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. 2004(3) Crimes 227 (SC); State of C.G. v. Jayanti Lal and Ors.
======
आपराधिक कानून – कारण उत्पन्न होने का स्थान – क्षेत्राधिकार
आवेदक संख्या 1 की शादी गैर-आवेदक संख्या 2 से हुई थी। शादी के बाद आवेदक संख्या 1 और अन्य सह-आवेदकों ने गैर-आवेदक संख्या 2 को दहेज की मांग को लेकर परेशान करना शुरू किया। बाद में आवेदक संख्या 1 ने गैर-आवेदक को छोड़ दिया और शहर से बाहर रहने लगा।
गैर-आवेदक संख्या 2 अपने पति को खोजते हुए उस शहर गई और वहां पुलिस में रिपोर्ट की। उस समय दोनों पक्षों में समझौता हो गया और आवेदक संख्या 1 ने पत्नी के साथ रहने की बात मानी, लेकिन बाद में उसने दुबारा पत्नी के साथ रहने से इनकार कर दिया और फिर से दहेज की मांग की।
इसके बाद गैर-आवेदक संख्या 2 ने अपने शहर में एफआईआर दर्ज कराई। आवेदकों ने इस एफआईआर के आधार पर शुरू हुई आपराधिक कार्यवाही को चुनौती दी, यह कहते हुए कि घटना उनके शहर में नहीं हुई, इसलिए वहां की पुलिस और अदालत को मामला चलाने का अधिकार नहीं है।
अदालत ने माना कि दहेज मांगने और परेशान करने की घटना हुई थी, लेकिन वह घटना शहर के बाहर हुई थी। इसलिए जिस शहर में कोई घटना नहीं हुई, वहां दर्ज एफआईआर के आधार पर आपराधिक कार्यवाही नहीं चलाई जा सकती। उस शहर की अदालत को इस मामले पर अधिकार नहीं है क्योंकि कोई कारण-कार्रवाई (cause of action) वहां उत्पन्न नहीं हुआ।
अदालत ने आपराधिक कार्यवाही को रद्द कर दिया और कहा कि गैर-आवेदक चाहें तो उचित क्षेत्राधिकार वाली अदालत में नया मामला दर्ज कर सकती हैं। याचिका स्वीकृत।
