Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 20.1.2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2006 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Varanasi as Case No. 1825 of 2007, State v. Anil Kumar Mishra and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sigra, district Varanasi. The allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No. 2 Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, father of Shilpi on 17.8.2006 at 3.10 p.m. was that Shilpi was married to the applicant No. 1 Anil Kumar Mishra on 10.5.2005. The opposite party No. 2 had given Rs. 10 lacs to applicant No. 2 Ram Sumer Mishra, who is the father of the applicant No. 1, and various other expensive gift items. The marriage had been solemnised at the informant's residence in Varanasi. After the marriage, Shilpi was staying in her matrimonial house in Lucknow. In the beginning, the conduct of the applicants, who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Shilpi was normal. However, two months after the marriage, Shilpi's husband applicant No. 1 asked Shilpi to get Rs. 5 lacs from her father, as he wanted to purchase a Scorpio car and his finances were falling short. When Shilpi expressed her inability, then her husband started assaulting, abusing and threatening her that he would give her divorce and when Shilpi complained to her mother-in-law and father-in-law, they stood up in support of their son and they began to torture Shilpi. Shilpi communicated this information on telephone to the informant and her mother. After that the informant visited Shilpi's matrimonial home in Lucknow at 103 South City. The applicants repeated the demand for Rs. 5 lacs for purchasing a Scorpio car. When the informant met them, they threatened him that if he did not pay the said amount, his daughter would not live peacefully and she would be tortured in the same manner. Thereafter, the informant brought his daughter back to Varanasi. He somehow, made arrangement for Rs. 1 lac and called Anil Kumar Mishra and gave him a draft of Rs. 1 lac, then Anil took Shilpi back to Lucknow. Even after receiving the draft Anil Kumar Mishra threatened them that they should arrange for the balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs, otherwise his parents would rot let Shilpi live peacefully and that he had no option but to follow his parents. After Shilpi returned to Lucknow, after one or three months, again the informant visited Lucknow on 20.5.2006, but Shilpi was again similarly harassed in their presence and the demand of Rs. 4 lacs was raised again and threats were given. On 25.6.2006, the applicants brought Shilpi to her house in Mahmoorganj in Varanasi at 7 a.m. and they pushed her into the house and told the informant that if he cared for the safety of his daughter, he should immediately pay Rs. 4 lacs for purchasing the Scorpio car, otherwise he would not keep his daughter in his house and she would be given divorce and if he tried to approach the police or the Courts, then they would eliminate the entire family. Other witnesses Devmohan Malaviya and the informant's friend A. K. Srivastava and others were present in the house intervened and were shocked by the conduct of Shilpi's husband and in-laws, but the applicants kept on abusing and issuing threats of divorce etc., and they left the house for Lucknow. The informant, even then, tried to approach the applicants for the welfare of his daughter, as he believed that in the Hindu traditions, after marriage, the marital home was a bride's real home, but the applicants refused to listen. Thereafter, he lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. on 17.8.2006. Firstly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Varanasi Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the offences in question primarily related to Lucknow.
(3.) AS clearly the incident dated 25.6.2006 took place in the informant's house, the contention of lack of territorial jurisdiction has no legs to stand. Under Section 178 of Cr. P.C. it is clearly provided that 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 local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2008 (6) ACC 319 : 2008 (1) ACR 691 (SC), where in paragraph 23, it has been mentioned that the offence of cruelty is a continuing offence and affects the society at large and in such matrimonial offences, the Court should not adopt a narrow and pedantic approach and should extend the jurisdiction. Though that was a case relating to the point of limitation, but in my view the said decision does show that the offence of cruelty in marriage may be committed in different areas and is a continuing offence which could be tried in any of those areas. The decision of Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (52) ACC 45 : 2005 (1) ACR 1077 (SC), cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, in which learned counsel for the applicants has referred to paragraph No. 10, which relies on another decision of the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 (50) ACC 210 : 2005 (1) ACR 577 (SC), only points out that where an offence has not at all been committed at a particular place at all, then the case could not be tried there and in the case of Ramesh's case, the acts of cruelty had either been committed in Mumbai or in Chennai. There was no act of cruelty alleged in Trichy, hence the Apex Court observed that the Trichy Court had no jurisdiction. The facts of the said decisions are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, where an incident has clearly occurred in Varanasi on 25.6.2006.;