2014 (8) TMI 1222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 Cod....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 despit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and as such it can safely be said that there was also a mental cruelty." This conclusion of the High Court was dubbed as curious by this Court since the High Court found earlier that "there is nothing in the complaint to show that any maltreatment was given to the Appellant at Datia. The allegations, which I may repeat here, are that the maltreatment was given within a specific period at Jabalpur." After looking at the decided case on the point i.e. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997) 5 SCC 30; State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890; Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100; and Ramesh v. State of T.N. (2005) 3 SCC 507, this Court held that the order of the High Court was unsustainable, and there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uelty have allegedly taken place at Delhi. The allegations as to what has happened at Ambikapur are as follows: No purposeful information has been received from the in-laws of Kiran even on contacting on telephone till today. They have been threatened and abused and two years have been elapsed and the in-laws have not shown any interest to call her to her matrimonial home and since then Kiran is making her both ends meet in her parental home. To get rid of the ill-treatment and harassment of the in-laws of Kiran, the complainant is praying for registration of an FIR and request for immediate legal action so that Kiran may get appropriate justice. 8. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated....