SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAPversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

                       [2011) 6 S.C.R. 83


                  SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP                              A
                                 v.
                  STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2011)
                         APRIL 11, 2011
                                                                     B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.178(c) - Criminal
  proceedings - Maintainability of - Territorial jurisdiction -
  Allegation made by wife that husband and in-laws subjected         C
  her to ill-treatment and cruelty at her matrimonial home at
   Ranchi and that she was sent back to her parental home at
   Gaya by her husband with threat of dire consequences for not
   fulfilling their demand of dowry - Criminal proceedings
   initiated by appellant-wife at Gaya against husband and in-       D
   laws - Whether the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya had the
· jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case instituted by the
   appellant - Held, Yes - The alleged offence was a continuing
   one having been committed in a number of local areas and
   one of the local areas being Gaya, the Magistrate at Gaya had     E
  the jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case - The
  episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing
  offence of harassment and ill-treatment allegedly meted out
   to the wife - C/ause(c) of s. 178 was clearly attracted - Penal
  Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 406 rlw. s. 34 - Dowry Prohibition       F
  Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4.

     The appellant-wife was married to respondent no.2.
 She was allegedly forced by the respondents-husband
 and in-laws to leave the matrimonial home at Ranchi and
 return to her parental home at Gaya. Subsequently, the              G
 appellant lodged FIR at Gaya u/ss. 498A and 406 r/w. s.
 34 of IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
 1961 alleging that the respondents-husband and in-laws
 were harassing and torturing her for dowry. The Judicial
                            83                                       H
   84       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A Magistrate, Gaya took cognizance of the alleged
  offences. On appeal, the High Court held that the
  proceedings at Gaya were not maintainable for lack of
  jurisdiction and quashed the entire proceedings at Gaya
  with liberty to the appellant to file the same in appropriate
s Court.
        In the instant appeals, the question which arose for
  consideration was whether the criminal proceedings .
  Initiated by the appellant at Gaya against her husband
C and in-laws were not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.
        Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD:1.1. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 deals with jurisdiction of the criminal
0 courts in inquiries and trials. From Sections 177-179
  CrPC, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence
  shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within
  whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However,
  when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an
  offence was committed or where an offence is committed
E partly in one local area and partly in another or where an
  offence is a continuing one, and continues to be
  committed in more than one local area and takes place
  In different local areas as per Section 178, the Court
  having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is
F competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179
  makes it clear that if anything happened as a
  consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired
  into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
  such thing has been done or such consequence has
G ensued. [Paras 6] [88-G-H; 89-F-H; 90-A]
       2. In the Instant case, in view of the specific assertion
  by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty
  at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi
H and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken
SUNITA KUMAR! KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 85
                   ANR.
to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat A
of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of
dowry, it is held that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of
CrPC, the offence in this case was a continuing one
having been committed in more local areas and one of
the local areas being Gaya, the Magistrate at Gaya has 8
jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted
therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one
and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of
continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted
out to the complainant. Further, from the allegations in the C
complaint, it appears that it is a continuing offence of ill·
treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in
the hands of all the accused persons and in such
continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part
and on other occasion one of the accused, namely,
husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause D
{c) of Section 178 of CrPC is clearly attracted. [Para 11]
[94-H; 95-A-D]
    Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police,
Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100: 2004 (3) Suppl.        E
SCR 604 and Bhura Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan
and Another (2008) 11 SCC 103 - distinguished.

    Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee
(1997) 5 SCC 30: 1997 (3) SCR 1127 and State of M.P. vs.
                                                             F
Suresh Kaushal and Another (2003) 11 SCC 126 - relied on.

    3. The impugned order of the High Court holding that
the proceedings at Gaya are not maintainable due to lack
of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. The Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya is permitted to proceed with the criminal   G
proceedings in trial and decide the same in accordance
with law. [Para 12) [95-e-GJ
                    Case Law Reference:
    1997 (3) SCR 1127       relied on        Para 8          H
     86       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A         (2003) 11 SCC 126        relied on         Para 8
          (2004) 8 SCC 100         distinguished      Para 9, 10
          (2008) 11 SCC 103        distinguished      Para 10
B        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No. 917 of 2011.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 29.4.2010 of the High
..   Court of Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 45153 of 2009.

c                                WITH
     Crl. A. No. 918 of 2011.

        Vivek Singh, Udita Singh, Chandra Prakash, Lakshmi
     Raman Singh for the Appellant
D
           S.B. Sanyal, Subhro Sanyal, Gopal Singh, Ramita Guha
     for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E         P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

       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
F or not for lack of jurisdiction?

          3. Brief facts:
       (a) The appellant herein got married to Sanjay Kumar Saini
  - respondent No.2 herein, on 16.04.2000 as per the Hindu rites
G and ceremonies at Gaya. According to the appellant, at the time
  of marriage, her father gifted all the household utensils, Almirah,
  Double Bed, Dining Table, Fridge, Television and an amount
     I

  of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash. In addition to the same, her father
  _spent so much money to solemnize the marriage and for gifts
 H
SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 87
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to other family members of her husband. In spite of the same,      A
immediately after the marriage, she was blamed for bringing
less dowry by her in-laws and they started harassing and
torturing her. Her husband also used to support his family
members to torture her. It is her further grievance that her
husband demanded an additional amount of Rs. 4 lakhs from          B
her parents for renovation of their house at Ranchi. When she
was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of her matrimonial
home at Ranchi and brought to her parental home at Gaya.
After giving birth to a girl child the circumstances became even
worse and everyone started blaming her that she had brought        c
an additional burden on them. After some time, her husband
came out with a new demand that unless her father gives his
house at Gaya to him she will not be taken back to her
matrimonial home at Ranchi. Having continuous torture and
unbearable nature of treatment by her husband and in-laws for      D
years and years, having no other option, the appellant lodged
a First Information Report (in short "FIR") being No. 66 of 2007
under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code (in short "IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short "D.P. Act") at Magadh Medical      E
College Police Station, Gaya.
      (b) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusal of the
charge-sheet, found a prima facie case against the accused
persons, accordingly, took cognizance of offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and F
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against all of them and
transferred the case to the Court of sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya for trial. Though an objection was raised
stating that the Court at Gaya has no jurisdiction, the learned
Magistrate, after considering all the relevant materials including G
the allegations in the complaint, rejected the said objection.
     (c) Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons
preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42478 of 2009 before
the High Court of Judicature at Patna. By order dated              H
      88       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 6 $.C.R.

, A   19.03.2010, the High Court found that the proceedings at Gaya
      are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and quashed the
      entire proceedings in Magadh Medical College Police Station
      Case No. 66 of 2007 with liberty to the appellant herein to file
      the same in appropriate Court. Following the said order, the
 e    High Court on 29.04.2010 allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No.
      45153 of 2009 filed by Sanjay Kumar Saini - the husband
      (respondent No.2 herein) and quashed the criminal
      proceedings lodged against him.

       (d) Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High
 C Court on 19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 42478 of
   2009 and 29.04.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45153 of
   2009, the appellant-wife has filed the above appeals before this
   Court by way of special leave petitions.
 D        4. Heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
      and Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for respondent
      No.2 and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1
      - State.
 E       5. Inasmuch as the issue is confined to territorial
    jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the
    appellant-wife, there is no need to go into other factual aspects.
    Since the SDJM has found that the Court at Gaya has
    jurisdiction to try the accused persons for offences punishable
    under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and
  F Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and the High Court reversed
    the said decision and found that the proceedings at Gaya are
    not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction, it is desirable to refer
    the relevant provisions and the contents of FIR.
 G         6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
      (in short "Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in
      inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are
      as follows:

  H
                  ,11l~
                  '


SUNITA KUMAR!. KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 89
          A~R~ [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-. Every offence        A
     shall ordinarily b,e inquired into and tried by a Court within
     whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

     178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in
     which of several local areas an offence was committed,           B
     or

     (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area
     and partly in another, or

     (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to       c
     be committed in more local areas than one, or

     {d) where it consists of several acts done in different local
     areas,

    it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having                D
    jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

     179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence
     ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything
     which has been done and of a consequence which has               E
     ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a
     Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been
     done or such consequence has ensued."

From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that
the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court    F
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, when
it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was
committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local
area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing
one, and continues to be committed in more than one local             G
area and takes place in different local areas as per Section
178, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas
is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179
makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of
the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court        H
                    .
    90       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011) 6 S.C.R.

A within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or
  such consequence has ensued.
         7. Keeping the above provisions in mind, let us consider
    the allegations made in the complaint. On 17.10.2007, Sunita
    Kumari Kashyap - the appellant herein made a complaint to
8   the Inspector In-charge, Magadh Medical College Police
    Station, Gaya. In the complaint, the appellant, after narrating
    her marriage with Sanjay Kumar Saini, respondent No.2 herein
    on 16.04.2000 stated that what had happened immediately
    after marriage at the instance of her husband and his family
C   members' ill-treatment, torture and finally complained that she
    was taken out of the matrimonial horn~ at Ranchi and sent to
    her parental Home at Gaya with the threat that unless she gets
    her father's house in the name of her husband, she has to stay
    at her parental house forever. In the said complaint, she also
D   asserted that her husband pressurized her to get her father's
    house in his name and when she denied she was beaten by
    her husband. It was also asserted that after keeping her entire
    jewellery and articles, on 24.12.2006, her husband brought her
    at Gaya and left her there warning that till his demands are met,
E   she has to stay at Gaya and if she tries to come back without
    meeting those demands she will be killed. It was also stated
    that from that date till the date of complaint, her in-laws never
    enquired about her. Even then she called them but they never
    talked to her. Perusal of the entire complaint, which was
F   registered as an FIR, clearly shows that there was ill-treatment
    and cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family
    members at the matrimonial home at Ranchi and because of
    their actions and threat she was forcibly taken to her parental
    home at Gaya where she initiated the criminal proceedings
G   against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A
    and 406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Among
    the offences, offence under Section 498A IPC is the main
    offence relating to cruelty by husband and his relatives. It is
    useful to extract the same which is as under:
H
SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 91
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman                A
     subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband
     or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
     woman to cruelty shall be punished )Nith imprisonment for
     a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
     liable to fine.                                                 B

     Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
     means-

     (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
     to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave          C
     injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
     physical) of the woman; or

     (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
     with a view to coercing her or any person related to her        0
     to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
     security or is on account of failure by her or any person
     related to her to meet such demand."

     8. Similar allegations as found in the complaint in the case
on hand with reference to the offences punishable under              E
Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC were considered by this Court in
the following decisions:

     (i) In Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) vs. Prashant Kumar
Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30, similar issue was considered F
by this Court and found that clause (c) of Section 178 of the
Code is attracted ·and the Magistrate at wife's parents' place
has also jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the said
decision, wife was the appellant before this Court and the
respondents were the husband, parents-in-law and two sisters- G
in-law of the appellant Sujata Mukherjee. The gist of the
allegation of the appellant, Sujata Mukherjee was that on
account of dowry demands, she had been maltreated and
humiliated not only in the house of her in-laws at Raigarh but
as a consequence of such ~vents, the husband of the appellant H
    92       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A had also come to the house of her parents at Raipur and
  assaulted her. On behalf of the respondents therein, it was
  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
B 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
c either to quash the summons or to transfer the criminal case
   to the competent court at Raigarh, the criminal revision petitions
   were filed before the High Court, 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
0
   assaulted the appellant and as such the husband could not
   plead want of territorial jurisdiction. Both the said criminal
   revision cases were disposed of by a common order dated
   31.08.1989 by the High Court holding that the case against the
   husband of the appellant alone is maintainable and in respect
E of other respondents related to the incidents taking place at
   Raigarh, hence, the criminal case on the basis of complaint
   made by the appellant is not maintainable at Raipur. The said
    order of the High Court was challenged by the appellant-Sujata
    Mukherjee in this Court. It was submitted that it will be evident
F 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, it was contended that the
G High Court was wrong in appreciating the scope of the
    complaint and proceeding on the footing that several isolated
    events had taken place at Raigarh and one isolated incident
    had taken place at Raipur. This Court basing reliance on
    Section 178 of the Code, in particular clauses (b) and (c), found
H that in view of allegations in the complaint that the offence was
SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 93
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
a continuing one having been committed in more local areas           A
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. Ultimately, accepting the stand of the
appellant, this Court held as under:
                                                                     B
     "We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by
     the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals
     a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted
     out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused
     respondents and in such continuing offence, on some C
     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.•
     (ii) In State of M.P. vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another,           D
(2003) 11 sec 126, again in a similar circumstance,
considering the provisions of Section 179 with reference to the
complaint relating to the offences under Section 498A read with
Section 34 IPC, this Court held as under:
                                                                     E
     "6. The above Section contemplates two courts having
     jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any
     one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local
     jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court
     within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has             F
     ensued. When the allegation is that the miscarriage took
     place at Jabalpur it cannot be contended that the court at
     Jabalpur could not have acquired jurisdiction as the acts
     alleged against the accused took place at Indore."
      9. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for       G
the respondents fairly stated that there is no dispute about the
jurisdiction of the Court at Gaya insofar as against the husband,
however, in respect of other relatives of the husband in the
absence of any act at Gaya, the said Court has no jurisdiction
and if at all, the wife has to pursue her remedy only at Ranchi.     H
    94        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court
  in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police,
  Chennai and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 100 in particular,
  paragraph 12 of the said decision which reads as under:
         "12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause
B
         of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court
         concerned. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the
         place where the offence was committed. In essence it is
         the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against
         the accused."
c
        It is true that Section 177 of the Code refers to the local
  jurisdiction where the offence is committed. Though the
  expression "cause of action" is not a stranger to criminal cases,
  in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code and in the light of
D the specific averment in the complaint of the appellant herein,
  we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to
  the case on hand.
         10. Mr. Sanyal also relied on a decision of this Court in
E Bhura Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another,
    (2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein following the decision in Y.
    Abraham Ajith and Others (supra), this Court held that "cause
  of action" having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where
  the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court
  where no part of offence was committed. For the same reasons,
F as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while there is no dispute
  as to the proposition in view of the fact that in the case on hand,
  the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was
  only a consequence at the continuing offence of harassment
  and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of
G Section 178 is attracted. In view of the above reason, both the
  decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case and we
  are unable to accept the stand taken by Mr. Sanyal.
         11. We have already adverted to the details made by the
H appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by
S\JNiTA KUMARI KASHYAP v. STATE OF BIHAR AND                    95
            ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
                  .
the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands   A
of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that
because of their action, she was taken to her parental home
at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for
not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of
Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was        B
a continuing one having been committed in more local areas
and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate
at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case
instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing
one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of                 c
continuing offence of harassment of ill-treatment meted out to
the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further,
from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is
a continuing offence of ill-treatment and humiliation meted out
to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in
                                                                      0
such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part
and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband
had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178
of the Code is clearly attracted.
     12. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the E
impugned order of the High Court holding that the proceedings
:it Gaya are not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction cannot
be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court dated
19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc. No. 42478 of 2009 and another
order dated 29.04.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 45153 of F
2009 are set aside. In view of the same, the SCJJM, Gaya is
permitted to proceed with the criminal proceedings in trial Nos.
1551 of 2008 and 1224 of 2009 and decide the same in
accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not
expressed anything on the merits and claims of both parties G
and our above conclusion is confined to the territorial jurisdiction
of the Court at Gaya. Both the criminal appeals are allowed.
B.B.B.                                         Appeals allowed.
                                                                      H