State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kaushal & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) no. 3739 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) no. 3739 of 2000)
Petitioner: State of Madhya Pradesh
Respondent: Suresh Kaushal & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) no. 3739 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) no. 3739 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 01, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 179 – Jurisdiction – Complainant married to accused at Jabalpur – Nuptial home at Indore – Allegations of cruel treat-ment at Indore – Physical torture while she was on family way – Taken to Jabalpur where miscarriage took place – If courts at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction. Held that under Section 179, court at Jabalpur also had jurisdiction as consequences ensued there. (Para 6)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Quashing – Case committed to sessions at Jabalpur – Revision for quashing – Charge quashed on grounds that court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction. Held that in case courts at Jabal-pur had no jurisdiction, quashing of entire criminal proceedings was not permissible in law. Course adopted by High Court not appreciated. (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. At the instance of Smt. Ranjana Kaushal a criminal case had been registered against her husband and his sister for the of-fences under Sections 313 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the case was charge-sheeted by the police. The case was later committed to the court of Sessions by a Magistrate at Jabalpur. When the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charge against the accused for the offences aforementioned they moved the High Court in revision for quashment of the charge. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the charge solely on the ground that the Jabalpur Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said order of the learned Single Judge is being challenged by special leave at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh as also Smt. Ranjana Kaushal the de facto complain-ant.
3. The marriage between Ranjana Kaushal and her husband Suresh Kaushal took place at Jabalpur and thereafter the couple resided in the nuptial home situated at Indore. Most of the actions alleged against the accused took place at Indore. However, the complaint contains the allegation that Smt. Ranjana Kaushal was subjected to physical torture when she was in the family way and she had to be taken back to her parental house at Jabalpur. The miscarriage took place while she was at Jabalpur. Section 313 IPC has been included in the charge as the cumulative effect of all the allegations ending with the consequence of the miscarriage which took place at Jabalpur.
4. Learned Single Judge found that the offence has been committed at Indore, and therefore, the court at Jabalpur has no jurisdic-tion at all for trying the case. This is what learned Single Judge has observed in connection with the same:
“The alleged offence under Section 313 IPC had also been commit-ted outside the city of Jabalpur. The courts at Jabalpur have therefore, no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the above of-fences against the petitioners. The competency of the court to take jurisdiction is determined by the place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It is the settled law that the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction, the offence is alleged to have been committed, is authorized to take cognizance, and either to try the case himself or to commit it to the court of Sessions. Since the alleged offence has not been committed within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Jabalpur, the learned Judge to whom the case has been committed by the learned Magis-trate of Jabalpur has no power to try the petitioners for the alleged offence, which were allegedly committed wholly outside the local limits of his jurisdiction.”
5. Obviously the learned Single Judge has not considered the implication of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is extracted below:
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues – When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
6. The above Section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued. When the allegation is that the miscarriage took place at Jabalpur it cannot be contend-ed that the court at Jabalpur could not have acquired jurisdic-tion as the acts alleged against the accused took place at In-dore.
7. That apart, when the High Court found that the courts at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction (with that finding we don’t agree now) the course adopted by the High Court by quashing the entire criminal proceedings is not permissible in law. The High Court should have transferred the case to the court which the High Court found to be vested with jurisdiction. We cannot appreciate the course adopted by the High Court in quashing the whole crimi-nal proceedings against the accused.
8. Be that as it may, as we found that the court at Jabalpur has also the jurisdiction to try the case it is unnecessary for considering whether the case should be transferred to Indore on that count.
9. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the im-pugned order. We are told that pursuant to the order passed by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order the trial is now progressing. If the lady accused had not yet applied for exemption from personal appearance it is open to such accused to make the application before the Sessions Judge to exempt such accused from personal appearance. If any such application is made the same shall be granted on the following conditions:
1. that she will not dispute her identity as the particular accused in the case;
2. that a Counsel on her behalf will appear for her in the court when the case is taken up; and
3. she herself will be present in the court when her presence is imperatively needed.
10. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. At the instance of Smt. Ranjana Kaushal a criminal case had been registered against her husband and his sister for the of-fences under Sections 313 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the case was charge-sheeted by the police. The case was later committed to the court of Sessions by a Magistrate at Jabalpur. When the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charge against the accused for the offences aforementioned they moved the High Court in revision for quashment of the charge. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the charge solely on the ground that the Jabalpur Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said order of the learned Single Judge is being challenged by special leave at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh as also Smt. Ranjana Kaushal the de facto complain-ant.
3. The marriage between Ranjana Kaushal and her husband Suresh Kaushal took place at Jabalpur and thereafter the couple resided in the nuptial home situated at Indore. Most of the actions alleged against the accused took place at Indore. However, the complaint contains the allegation that Smt. Ranjana Kaushal was subjected to physical torture when she was in the family way and she had to be taken back to her parental house at Jabalpur. The miscarriage took place while she was at Jabalpur. Section 313 IPC has been included in the charge as the cumulative effect of all the allegations ending with the consequence of the miscarriage which took place at Jabalpur.
4. Learned Single Judge found that the offence has been committed at Indore, and therefore, the court at Jabalpur has no jurisdic-tion at all for trying the case. This is what learned Single Judge has observed in connection with the same:
“The alleged offence under Section 313 IPC had also been commit-ted outside the city of Jabalpur. The courts at Jabalpur have therefore, no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the above of-fences against the petitioners. The competency of the court to take jurisdiction is determined by the place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It is the settled law that the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction, the offence is alleged to have been committed, is authorized to take cognizance, and either to try the case himself or to commit it to the court of Sessions. Since the alleged offence has not been committed within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Jabalpur, the learned Judge to whom the case has been committed by the learned Magis-trate of Jabalpur has no power to try the petitioners for the alleged offence, which were allegedly committed wholly outside the local limits of his jurisdiction.”
5. Obviously the learned Single Judge has not considered the implication of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is extracted below:
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues – When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
6. The above Section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and the trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued. When the allegation is that the miscarriage took place at Jabalpur it cannot be contend-ed that the court at Jabalpur could not have acquired jurisdic-tion as the acts alleged against the accused took place at In-dore.
7. That apart, when the High Court found that the courts at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction (with that finding we don’t agree now) the course adopted by the High Court by quashing the entire criminal proceedings is not permissible in law. The High Court should have transferred the case to the court which the High Court found to be vested with jurisdiction. We cannot appreciate the course adopted by the High Court in quashing the whole crimi-nal proceedings against the accused.
8. Be that as it may, as we found that the court at Jabalpur has also the jurisdiction to try the case it is unnecessary for considering whether the case should be transferred to Indore on that count.
9. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the im-pugned order. We are told that pursuant to the order passed by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order the trial is now progressing. If the lady accused had not yet applied for exemption from personal appearance it is open to such accused to make the application before the Sessions Judge to exempt such accused from personal appearance. If any such application is made the same shall be granted on the following conditions:
1. that she will not dispute her identity as the particular accused in the case;
2. that a Counsel on her behalf will appear for her in the court when the case is taken up; and
3. she herself will be present in the court when her presence is imperatively needed.
10. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
