AMARENDU JYOTI Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CHHATTISGARH)
Decided on
August 04,2014
Amarendu Jyoti
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHATTISGARH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BIHAR VS. DEOKARAN NENSHI [REFERRED TO]SUJATA MUKHERJEE VS. PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
Y ABRAHAM AJITH VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MANISH RATAN VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHAKTI TIWARI (IN 74) GORAKH NATH TIWARI & ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-8-125] [REFERRED TO]SHAKTI TIWARI (IN 74) GORAKH NATH TIWARI & ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH MITTAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH MITTAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY KACHROO AND ANOTHER VS. DR. ISHITA GANJOO [LAWS(J&K)-2017-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY KACHROO AND ANOTHER VS. DR. ISHITA GANJOO [LAWS(J&K)-2017-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
AISHWARYA JAIN VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2023-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
AISHWARYA JAIN VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2023-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PANWAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PANWAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PANWAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PANWAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARTH SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARTH SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
SWAATI NIRKHI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
SWAATI NIRKHI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT YADAV SON OF LATE BALDEO YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT YADAV SON OF LATE BALDEO YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
REFERENCE FROM DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SIWAN VS. SUO-MOTU [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
REFERENCE FROM DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SIWAN VS. SUO-MOTU [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
UTKARSH RANA AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
UTKARSH RANA AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER JAIN AND ANR VS. SHRUTI JAIN [LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER JAIN AND ANR VS. SHRUTI JAIN [LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
ANEES AHMAD AND ORS VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-490] [REFERRED]
ANEES AHMAD AND ORS VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-490] [REFERRED]
MRIDU SHANKAR DEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
MRIDU SHANKAR DEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSUNDER MITTAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSUNDER MITTAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
RUPALI DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
RUPALI DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY BHARUNT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY BHARUNT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
VILLA VEERA NAGENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
VILLA VEERA NAGENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAY PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
JAY PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
ZOHRA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
ZOHRA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
YADWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
YADWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
V.K.S. RADHESA VS. STATE OF A. P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
V.K.S. RADHESA VS. STATE OF A. P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ CHHABRA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-261] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ CHHABRA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-261] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG MATHUR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG MATHUR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU MOHAN JHA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(PAT)-2017-11-264] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU MOHAN JHA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(PAT)-2017-11-264] [REFERRED TO]
JAY PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-201] [REFERRED TO]
JAY PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-201] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PUSHPA W/O MANOJ KEDIA, D/O HARI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-270] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PUSHPA W/O MANOJ KEDIA, D/O HARI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-270] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
MANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
MANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
AASHISH KUMAR MISHRA @ AASHISH KUMAR FATENDRA NATH MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
AASHISH KUMAR MISHRA @ AASHISH KUMAR FATENDRA NATH MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The Appellant No. 1-Amarendu Jyoti, who is husband of Respondent No. 2-Smt. Kiran Sinha, has challenged the Order dated 19th December, 2006 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case [MCRL] No. 1104 of 2006 dismissing the Appellants' application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the Code'] and holding that the First Information Report [F.I.R.] for offence Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as 'Indian Penal Code'], lodged by the Respondent No. 3-Madhusudan Sinha, was liable to be tried by the Court at Ambikapur, which has jurisdiction to try the offence. The main contention of the Appellants is that the incident of cruelty alleged by Respondent No. 2 has taken place only at Delhi, where the couple resided after which the Respondent No. 2 went to stay with her parents at Ambikapur in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the Court at Ambikapur has no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence against the Appellants in the F.I.R. Under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, lodged by Respondent No. 3.
(2.)The marriage of the Appellant No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 took place on 21.04.2003 at Patna. The couple resided at Delhi from 27.04.2003 to 22.05.2003 when the Respondent No. 2/wife left Delhi for her parents' place at Ambikapur. After about 2 1/2 years, her father-Madhusudan Sinha/Respondent No. 3 filed an F.I.R. at Ambikapur alleging that Respondent No. 2/Kiran Sinha has been subjected to cruelty by her husband/Appellant No. 1, elder brother-in-law/Appellant No. 2 and elder sister-in-law/Appellant No. 3, who are therefore to be punished Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)The Appellants approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Under Section 482 of the Code questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambikapur to try the offence alleged against the Appellants. The Respondent No. 3 has alleged cruelty in the F.I.R. dated 31.12.2005. However, according to the Appellants each of the alleged incidents, which constitute cruelty, has taken place when the couple resided together in Delhi between 27.04.2003 to 22.05.2003, before the Respondent No. 2 shifted to Ambikapur to stay with her father- Respondent No. 3. Thus, according to the Appellants the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence cannot be with the Court at Ambikapur, where no incident is alleged to have taken place. This argument did not find favour with the High Court, which dismissed the application Under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court held, having regard to the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code that after the Respondent No. 2 had left the Appellants society at Delhi and gone to Ambikapur to reside with her father, the acts of cruelty continued and therefore the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence. The High Court relied on the fact that the Respondent No. 2 was made to abandon her husband's company because of cruel treatment and compelled to stay at Ambikapur; further, that the Respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty by telephone calls over which she was threatened and demand of dowry was made. The letters written by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 showing the sufferings of the wife at Ambikapur were relied on and the High Court noted that despite the Respondent's plight the Appellant made no effort to take her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the High Court held that the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence and the court at Ambikapur had jurisdiction to try.
(2.)The marriage of the Appellant No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 took place on 21.04.2003 at Patna. The couple resided at Delhi from 27.04.2003 to 22.05.2003 when the Respondent No. 2/wife left Delhi for her parents' place at Ambikapur. After about 2 1/2 years, her father-Madhusudan Sinha/Respondent No. 3 filed an F.I.R. at Ambikapur alleging that Respondent No. 2/Kiran Sinha has been subjected to cruelty by her husband/Appellant No. 1, elder brother-in-law/Appellant No. 2 and elder sister-in-law/Appellant No. 3, who are therefore to be punished Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)The Appellants approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Under Section 482 of the Code questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambikapur to try the offence alleged against the Appellants. The Respondent No. 3 has alleged cruelty in the F.I.R. dated 31.12.2005. However, according to the Appellants each of the alleged incidents, which constitute cruelty, has taken place when the couple resided together in Delhi between 27.04.2003 to 22.05.2003, before the Respondent No. 2 shifted to Ambikapur to stay with her father- Respondent No. 3. Thus, according to the Appellants the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence cannot be with the Court at Ambikapur, where no incident is alleged to have taken place. This argument did not find favour with the High Court, which dismissed the application Under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court held, having regard to the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code that after the Respondent No. 2 had left the Appellants society at Delhi and gone to Ambikapur to reside with her father, the acts of cruelty continued and therefore the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence. The High Court relied on the fact that the Respondent No. 2 was made to abandon her husband's company because of cruel treatment and compelled to stay at Ambikapur; further, that the Respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty by telephone calls over which she was threatened and demand of dowry was made. The letters written by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 showing the sufferings of the wife at Ambikapur were relied on and the High Court noted that despite the Respondent's plight the Appellant made no effort to take her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the High Court held that the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence and the court at Ambikapur had jurisdiction to try.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.