1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the case laws submitted on behalf of the applicant.
2. The instant application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the application are that earlier a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India had been preferred on behalf of the applicant and that petition was dismissed and then the applicant filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, that too was dismissed and then as per direction of the Court, the applicant approached the lower court where the matter was scrutinized. The applicant had challenged the jurisdiction of lower court. The applicant has alleged that the court at Lucknow had no jurisdiction and the matter should not have been initiated at Lucknow. As far as, jurisdiction is concerned, although trial court ruled that Lucknow Court has jurisdiction but in the revision, the revisional court remanded back the matter and asked the trial court to go through the facts mentioned in the complaint and then only form its opinion. The revisional court framed point of determination for decision to lower court and directed it to decide the matter in the light of the issues framed. Trial court again held otherwise holding that court had jurisdiction, therefore, the applicant had no option but to file second revision against that order and this time revisional court has dittoed the finding of trial court. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant had no option except to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to check the abuse of process by courts below. The main question in the petition is that whether the court at Lucknow has jurisdiction or not.
4. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant has vehemently argued that there are scores of rulings of Hon'ble the Apex Court that jurisdiction lies only in a place where cause of action has arosen and occurrence has taken place but here it is admitted fact that the alleged incident has taken place at Patna. The only point alleged by the opposite party is that when she came back to Lucknow, she received telephonic message in which threat has been extended to opposite party-victim that she will be mal-treated, humiliated and she will be reduced to status akin to shoes of mother-in-law and this was the threat advanced by the husband only. As far as other relatives of husband are concerned they have neither threatened nor contacted the victim opposite party. Therefore, firstly, so far as torture is concerned, that was caused by the husband and nobody else because only husband had contacted at telephone and that too when he was at Singapore and in that eventuality, the court at Lucknow, therefore, will have no jurisdiction. Lastly they resided together at Patna and all the relatives of husband too resided at Patna. Therefore, Lucknow court cannot entertain the grievances raised by the opposite party.
5. Learned counsel further reiterated that during the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and earlier application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the issue of jurisdiction was never raised and therefore in the subsequent petition the applicant can move the court regarding territorial jurisdiction and can challenge the territorial jurisdiction. It has been raised for the first time. The previous petition will not create any bar in instituting fresh petition on different ground. The said issue was initially raised before the trial court during hearing and the matter was agitated to this Court when the trial court did not accede to the request of applicant.
6. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2012) 10 S.C.C. 741, in which, Hon'ble the Apex Court in para 19 of the judgement has held as under :
"19. In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant's husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the court."
7. Therefore, in the aforesaid case, court reached the conclusion that if any torture has been caused by the husband, even then the other members of the family are exempted from territorial jurisdiction because neither they have caused agony or torture nor any cognizable offence has been committed by them.
8. Learned counsel for opposite parties while replying the arguments added that the marriage took place at Lucknow and the moment she stepped into matrimonial home at Patna, she was mal-treated, tortured and humiliated and demand of dowry was raised. She was subjected to harassment on the ground that dowry provided was not enough and one Car and an amount of Rs.50.00 Lakh must have been given in the dowry and when she returned along with her father then she received telephone call from her husband reiterating the same facts and threatening that her status shall be reduced to such miserable condition that she will be reduced to her mother's shoes, therefore, torture, agony, apathy and suffering on her part continued and in totality the threat covers all of them because all of them were instrumental in harassing and humiliating her. The entire family contributed in torture. The allegations, though, are in isolation against husband but constitute as if all the accused jointly committed torture and caused suffering and mental agony to victim. Section 498-A I.P.C is reproduced as under :
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman 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 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
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 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 of any person related to her 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."
The object of section 498-A is to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry, therefore, the definition of the torture can be gathered by set of circumstances and not by sole act.
There is clear indication that not only husband but all the relatives of the husband who have subjected the woman to cruelty shall be punished and the cruelty has also been defined in this section. Cruelty means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. and harassment has also been explained as any coercive act or any unlawful demand. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar, A.I.R. 1988 SC 121 has laid down the ratio :- "(i) The wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of persistent demand made on her by her husband an in-laws. The High Court took the view that there was nothing wrong in these demands as money was needed by the husband for his personal use and in such a case wife should extend help. Reversing the judgment, the Supreme Court held that demand for dowry is prohibited under the law. That itself was bad enough"
The aforesaid ratio has also been followed in the case of Prakash Kaur v. Harijinderpal Singh, A.I.R. 1999 Rajasthan 46.
9. Learned counsel further pointed out that the view of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another (Supra) is quite distinguishable regarding the allegation in the instant case, and it will include the allegation against all the relatives whereas in the aforesaid case of Hon'ble Apex Court the allegations were limited against husband only. Her entire family has been roped in as far as allegations are concerned.
10. In reply learned counsel for applicant also placed reliance on the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 S.C.C. Page 667. In paras 30, 31 and 32 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under :
"30.It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman 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 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, `cruelty' means:-
(a) any willful 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; or
(b) harassment of the woman 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 or any person related to her to meet such demand.
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern."
11. The only question here is that whether the trial court has jurisdiction as per allegation made in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant repeatedly argued that the matter decided earlier will not create any hurdle for forming opinion by this Court in this petition. First petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were no doubt dismissed but there the issue was different and the issue of territorial jurisdiction was never raised. The issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised for the first time before the trial court. The trial court, however, did not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and decided the same in affirmative. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the applicant preferred first revision and in that revision the revisional court passed favourable suggestions and framed certain questions to be decided by the trial court for determining the issue of jurisdiction. However, the trial court again retracted back to its original order and decided the issue against the applicant. The applicant had no option but to file another revision against the order of the trial court passed after the judgement of the revisional court. This time the revisional courted dittoed the observation of the trial court and since no remedy available to the applicant to check the abuse of process of the court, he preferred the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. I have gone through the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and perused the case laws cited by the applicant.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below :
"482 Cr.P.C. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice"
13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Monica Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 781, has clearly ruled that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may be disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 has reiterated this ratio.
14. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the court has to be cautious in entertaining the application under section 482 Cr.PC. The plain and simple facts here are that a young lady has complained that she has been humiliated, tortured and mal-treated by her in laws after performance of the marriage at Lucknow and afterwards she was again harassed at her matrimonial home at Patna. She informed about these facts to her father, who after intervention brought her back to Lucknow and when she reached Lucknow, she received telephonic message from her husband which is the basis of the F.I.R.
15. The telephonic message is nothing but prior and simple threat that her family life will be ruined and she will be reduced to miserable and her condition will be petty and status will be reduced to shoes of her mother-in-law that her husband has threatened and in complete scenario the threat reached to the opposite party-victim. She was under the impression that the threat has not only been at the behest of her husband but of such relatives, who caused humiliation to her when she was at matrimonial home at Patna. Therefore, jurisdiction will be determined by all the facts in entirety and not by sole fact that she has been threatened by her husband only. Test is that how she felt after receiving threat and her psychological and mental condition should also be taken into consideration by determining the jurisdiction. Therefore, in all eventuality the impression is that the opposite party has caused harassment, agony, apathy and torture to her while she tried to moan herself and to wipe of her tears at her parents home.
16. The case laws submitted by the applicant no doubt reveal that under those circumstances, the relatives of husband should not be implicated, if the allegations are not made against them but in the instant case, I am of the opinion that the words used by the husband in the telephone message are enough to constitute the offence against his relatives also, In my opinion, the effect of those words was that all the persons simultaneously threatened and caused mental agony to poor lady. The ratio of Hon'ble the Apex Court cited on behalf of the applicant do not attract the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as the facts here are distinguishable and clearly constitute the offence, therefore, the applicant as well as other relatives are liable to be tried by the court on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party-victim.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the trial court is directed to proceed with the case forthwith.
Let a copy of the order be placed in the connected Crl.Misc.Case No.5143 (482 Cr.P.C.) of 2013.
Order Date:-28.3.2014 sks