2014 (8) TMI 1222 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows appeal, shifts trial location despite cruelty offense not being continuous under Indian Penal Code.

Amarendu Jyoti Versus State of Chattisgarh

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision on territorial jurisdiction. It held that the offence of cruelty was not a ... Cruelty - continuing offence or not - whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute a continuing offence? - HELD THAT:- It is found from the F.I.R. that all the incidents alleged by the complainant in respect of the alleged cruelty are said to have occurred at Delhi. The cruel and humiliating words spoken to the 2nd Respondent/wife by her husband, elder brother-in-law and elder sister-in-law for bringing less dowry are said to have been uttered at Delhi. Allegedly, arbitrary demands of lakhs of rupees in dowry have been made in Delhi. The incident of beating and dragging the Respondent No. 2 and abusing her in filthy language also is said to have taken place at Delhi. The offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the Respondent No. 2 'continued unabated' on account of no effort having been made by the Appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the Appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the Appellants over the telephone - it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:Jurisdictional challenge based on the location of alleged incidents of cruelty and the concept of continuing offence.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdictional ChallengeThe Appellant challenged the High Court's decision regarding the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants argued that the alleged incidents of cruelty took place only in Delhi, where the couple resided, and not in Ambikapur, where the Respondent No. 2 later stayed with her parents. The High Court, however, held that the acts of cruelty were a continuing offence even after the Respondent No. 2 left Delhi for Ambikapur. The High Court relied on evidence such as letters showing the wife's sufferings at Ambikapur and threats made over the telephone. The Appellants contended that the F.I.R. did not disclose a continuing offence and relied on the decision in Manish Ratan's case to support their argument.Issue 2: Continuing OffenceThe core question revolved around whether the allegations in the F.I.R. constituted a continuing offence. The F.I.R. detailed incidents of cruelty alleged to have occurred in Delhi, including verbal abuse, demands for dowry, and physical violence. In contrast, the events at Ambikapur mainly involved the wife's isolation and harassment by her in-laws. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the complaint, concluded that the offence of cruelty could not be considered a continuing one as per the provisions of the Code. The Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that mental cruelty continued unabated, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding threats made over the telephone. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the appropriate court with jurisdiction to try the offence was in Delhi, not Ambikapur.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision on territorial jurisdiction. It held that the offence of cruelty was not a continuing one as per the provisions of the Code. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the Court permitted the trial to proceed in Ambikapur, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.