Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No.
Both the said criminal revision cases were disposed of by a companymon 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 of other respondents related to the incidents taking place at Raigarh, hence, the criminal case on the basis of companyplaint made by the appellant is number maintainable at Raipur.
The gist of the allegation of the appellant, Sujata Mukherjee was that on account of dowry demands, she had been maltreated and humiliated number only in the house of her in laws at Raigarh but as a companysequence of such events, the husband of the appellant had also companye to the house of her parents at Raipur and assaulted her.
The said order of the High Court was challenged by the appellant Sujata Mukherjee in this Court.
45153 of 2009 filed by Sanjay Kumar Saini the husband respondent No.2 herein and quashed the criminal proceedings lodged against him.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusal of the charge sheet, found a prima facie case against the accused persons, accordingly, took companynizance of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and 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.
On behalf of the respondents therein, it was companytended before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur that the criminal case was number maintainable before the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate because the cause of action took place only at Raigarh which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Raipur.
Heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 State.
2,50,000/ in cash.
Having companytinuous torture and unbearable nature of treatment by her husband and in laws for years and years, having numberother option, the appellant lodged a First Information Report in short FIR being No.
A prayer was also made to quash the summons issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by entertaining the said companyplaint of Smt Mukherjee.
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 College Police Station, Gaya.
Her husband also used to support his family members to torture her.
In the said decision, wife was the appellant before this Court and the respondents were the husband, parents in law and two sisters in law of the appellant Sujata Mukherjee.
Inasmuch as the issue is companyfined to territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant wife, there is numberneed to go into other factual aspects.
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 of Rs.
It was also stated that from that date till the date of companyplaint, her in laws never enquired about her.
After giving birth to a girl child the circumstances became even worse and everyone started blaming her that she had brought an additional burden on them.
It is her further grievance that her husband demanded an additional amount of Rs.
Case No.
When she was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of her matrimonial home at Ranchi and brought to her parental home at Gaya.
In spite of the same, immediately after the marriage, she was blamed for bringing less dowry by her in laws and they started harassing and torturing her.
66 of 2007 with liberty to the appellant herein to file the same in appropriate Court.
After some time, her husband came out with a new demand that unless her father gives his house at Gaya to him she will number be taken back to her matrimonial home at Ranchi.
Explanation For the purpose of this section, cruelty means a any wilful companyduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to companymit 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 companyrcing 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.
As the Chief Judicial Magistrate was number inclined either to quash the summons or to transfer the criminal case to the companypetent companyrt 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 assaulted the appellant and as such the husband companyld number plead want of territorial jurisdiction.
Brief facts The appellant herein got married to Sanjay Kumar Saini respondent No.2 herein, on 16.04.2000 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gaya.
Following the said order, the High Court on 29.04.2010 allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No.
The only issue for companysideration in both the appeals is whether criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant herein at Gaya against her husband and his relatives are maintainable or number for lack of jurisdiction?
In the said companyplaint, she also asserted that her husband pressurized her to get her fathers house in his name and when she denied she was beaten by her husband.
By order dated 19.03.2010, the High Court found that the proceedings at Gaya are number maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and quashed the entire proceedings in Magadh Medical College Police Station Case No.
4 lakhs from her parents for renovation of their house at Ranchi.
On 17.10.2007, Sunita Kumari Kashyap the appellant herein made a companyplaint to the Inspector In charge, Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 19.03.2010 in Criminal Misc.
Similar allegations as found in the companyplaint in the case on hand with reference to the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC were companysidered by this Court in the following decisions In Sujata Mukherjee Smt vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, 1997 5 SCC 30, similar issue was companysidered by this Court and found that clause c of Section 178 of the Code is attracted and the Magistrate at wifes parents place has also jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
In addition to the same, her father spent so much money to solemnize the marriage and for gifts to other family members of her husband.
In the companyplaint, 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 members ill treatment, torture and finally companyplained that she was taken out of the matrimonial home at Ranchi and sent to her parental Home at Gaya with the threat that unless she gets her fathers house in the name of her husband, she has to stay at her parental house forever.
42478 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Though an objection was raised stating that the Court at Gaya has numberjurisdiction, the learned Magistrate, after companysidering all the relevant materials including the allegations in the companyplaint, rejected the said objection.
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, she has to stay at Gaya and if she tries to companye back without meeting those demands she will be killed.
