TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court allows appeal, shifts trial location despite cruelty offense not being continuous under Indian Penal Code.</h1> <h3>Amarendu Jyoti Versus State of Chattisgarh</h3> Amarendu Jyoti Versus State of Chattisgarh - TMI 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
