High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 06-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.4332 & 8922 OF 20071.Victor Auxilium2.Susainathan....Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4332/2007Auxillia...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8922/2007-vs-1.State, rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police, W-19 All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.2.V.Florin Vinolia...Respondents in both petitions Impleaded as per orderdated 04.04.2007 & 02.04.2007 in MP.3/07Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurepraying for to quash the charges framed as stated therein.For petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4332/2007: Mr.A.Raghunathan, for M/s.S.S.Jayanthi.For petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8922/2007 : Mrs.V.Uma ShankariFor respondent 1 in both petitions : Mr.A.Saravanan,Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side).For respondent 2 in both petitions : Mr.Ramesh,for M/s.Ram & RamO R D E RThese petitions have been filed to call for the records inC.C.No.3819 of 2006 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai, and to quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties, asmentioned in Crl.O.P.No.4332 of 2007, would be referred and the petitionerin Crl.O.P.No.8922 of 2007 by name Auxilia.3. The facts, in a nutshell, are as under :3.1. First petitioner is son of second petitioner and secondrespondent is the de facto complainant, who is wife of first petitioner.The marriage of first petitioner and second respondent was celebrated on22.06.2000 in St.Theresas Church, Trichy. 3.2. At the time of marriage, all the accused demanded 80sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.6.00 lakhs in cash towards dowry,however, the parents of the de facto complainant offered 50 sovereigns ofgold jewels, besides a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh in cash. The couple was livingat Thiruvanmiyur in Chennai. First accused left for Singapore andreturned back after one year. In August, 2001, he took the de factocomplainant to Singapore. While the spouses were at Singapore, second andthird accused made phone calls to fist accused, by means of which theattitude of first accused changed suddenly and he started demanding a sumof Rs.10.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant, stating that if she didnot bring Rs.10.00 lakhs, he would send her back to her parents. Whilethe de facto complainant asked her parents over phone, they replied thatthey could not arrange Rs.10.00 lakhs at once, which information wasconveyed to first accused, for which he replied that they had to demandRs.10.00 lakhs even at the time of marriage, which they did not, andfurther asked her to arrange for the amount. Thereafter, first accusedcalled second accused to Singapore and sent the de facto complainant withhim to India on 07.02.2002. Further, he proceeded to arrange forcancellation of visa for the de facto complainant on 20.03.2002,consequent upon which it was cancelled. When the de facto complainantasked second and third accused over phone to arrange for re-union, theytold her that only if she arranged Rs.10.00 lakhs, they would make effortsfor re-union and disconnected the conversation. Second accused contactedthe de facto complainant in April,2002, stating that first accused wascoming down to India in that month and Rs.10.00 lakhs might be kept readyand only, thereupon, they would send her with first accused to Singapore,if not, they would celebrate second marriage to him and settle them atSingapore itself. The de facto complainant approached third accused atonce and asked her to take steps for re-union, whereby she also told thatonly if de facto complainant paid Rs.10.00 lakhs, they could do something.3.3. On 24.04.2005, second accused contacted the father of defacto complainant over phone and asked him to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs, sincefirst accused had arrived in India. Thereafter, the de facto complainantcame to know that first accused contacted second marriage with one Kavithaat Singapore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.4. First respondent police, after investigation, laid chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498Aand 494 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.3.5. On 02.02.2007, the trial Court framed charges against theaccused. While all the three accused were charged under Section 498A IPCand Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the offence under Section 494 IPCwas framed against first accused alone.4. The contention of the petitioners in both the petitions aretwo folded, namely, (i) first respondent police has no territorialjurisdiction to investigate the case, as the allegations in the F.I.R.would clearly portray that every stage of offence was held in Singapore,besides the reason being that though the marriage was celebrated in Trichyand first accused was also a resident of Trichy, he left for Singaporeimmediately after the marriage and both the spouses were leading marriedlife in Singapore for sometime, particularly, during when the allegeddemand was made, and (ii) as per Section 198 (c) Cr.P.C., where the personaggrieved by an offence punishable under Section 494 or 495 IPC is wife,complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother,sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother or sisterand since the offence under Section 494 IPC is not expected to beinvestigated by police, the de facto complainant should have laid aprivate complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for necessaryrelief and clubbing of the offence under Section 494 along with otheroffences in this matter is not legally permissible, whereby the accusedare prejudiced.5. Besides the above said grounds, the petitioner Auxillia, inher petition, has taken another ground to the effect that she was, in noway, connected with the alleged demand of dowry and jewels by first andsecond accused, as, she, right from the date of her marriage or even fromthe marriage of the de facto complainant with first accused was livingaway from the family and that she never interfered with the affairs of thede facto complainant and that she was an utter stranger to the domesticaffairs of first accused and, hence, she had not played any role in thematter, so as to attract the provisions of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.6. As far as the first point, namely, territorial jurisdictionof first respondent is concerned, it was much said that the averments inthe complaint would clinchingly show that in Chennai, no part of cause ofaction arose and no police station or any Court in Chennai could exercisejurisdiction over the matter. 7. In my view, the said contention is not tenable, for thereason that a reading of the complaint, charge sheet and the chargesframed by the Court as well would vividly indicate that major portions ofcause of action for the complaint have arisen in Chennai, which are beingenumerated as below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) At the time of marriage, there was a demand for Rs.6.00lakhs in cash and 80 sovereigns of gold jewellery, for which the parentsof de facto complainant offered 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1.00lakh in cash. (b) In the year 2001, while the de facto complainant was atSingapore with first accused, second and third accused contacted firstaccused from Chennai over phone, pursuant to which, first accused demandedRs.10.00 lakhs as dowry from the de facto complainant.(c) After the de facto complainant was sent from Singapore withsecond accused by first accused, while she was at Chennai, second accusedtold the de facto complainant in April,2002, that first accused wascoming in that month and only if she arranged Rs.10.00 lakhs, they wouldsend her to Singapore with first accused, otherwise they would performsecond marriage to first accused. Thereafter, the de facto complainantwent to the house of third accused at Shenoynagar in Chennai and asked herto do favour to her, for which third accused replied that they would nottake any steps, if Rs.10.00 lakhs was not paid.(d) On 24.04.2005, second accused told the father of the defacto complainant that on that day itself, first accused came to India andonly if the demanded dowry in question was paid, his daughter would lead ahappy married life.8. The above said allegations would clearly show that sufficientportions of cause of action had taken place at Chennai. Under thecircumstances, the contention that no cause of action has arisen atChennai would not be countenanced.9. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would drawattention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSatvinder Kaur v. State (Govt.of Delhi) and another, 1999 Supreme CourtCases (Cri) 1503, wherein it has been held that at the stage ofinvestigation, no question of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wouldarise, on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorialjurisdiction and after investigation is over, if the investigating officerarrives at a conclusion that cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. hasnot arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then, he is required tosubmit a report accordingly under Section 170 Cr.P.C. and to forward thecase to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.10. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has elaboratelydealt with the statutory provisions on the subject and laid down a law tobe followed by the Courts of the country. Further, after analysing theimport of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., it is observed therein as under : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "A reading of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. wouldmake it clear that Section 177 provides for "ordinary"place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia,provides for place of enquiry or trial when it isuncertain in which of several local areas an offencewas committed or where the offence was committedpartly in one local area and partly in another andwhere it consisted of several acts done in differentlocal areas, it could be enquired into or tried by acourt having jurisdiction over any of such localareas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, itcannot be held that the SHO does not have territorialjurisdiction to investigate the crime."11. The Apex Court also dealt with the power exercisable by HighCourt, conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and rendered findings in thefollowing terms :"The legal position is well settled that if anoffence is disclosed the court will not normallyinterfere with an investigation into the case and willpermit investigation into the offence alleged to becompleted. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses thecommission of an offence, the court does not normallystop the investigation, for, to do so would be totrench upon the lawful power of the police toinvestigate into cognizable offences. It is alsosettled by a long course of decisions of the SupremeCourt that for the purpose of exercising its powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or acomplaint, the High Court would have to proceedentirely on the basis of the allegations made in thecomplaint or the documents accompanying the same perse; it has to no jurisdiction to examine thecorrectness or otherwise of the allegations."12. Following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, in thiscase, it is to be held that the requests of the petitioners are not at allsupported by settled legal positions. In the first place, ample avermentswith reference to the jurisdiction point of view are available in thecomplaint itself, on the basis of which charge sheet was laid by thepolice and charges were framed by the Court. In another angle, even ifthe allegations do not satisfy the Court as to the point of territorialjurisdiction, the law does not permit for quashing of the proceedings intoto, but, provides for a direction to the investigating officer to submita report under Section 170 Cr.P.C. and to forward the case to theMagistrate, who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. In so far as the first contention with regard to theterritorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioners have to be out ofCourt and, as regards the charge under Section 494 IPC, it is the outcryof the first petitioner that the police have no power to investigate, butthe law is otherwise.14. It is true, as mentioned in Section 198 (c) Cr.P.C., if theaggrieved person is the wife, her close relative has to file a privatecomplaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and, since it is a non-cognizable offence, police are precluded from investigating the case. But,Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C. contemplates that where a case relates to two ormore offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall bedeemed to be a cognizable offence, notwithstanding that the other offencesare non-cognizable.15. While the intent of the said provision is taken forconsideration with respect to the request of the petitioners, though theoffence under Section 494 ICP is a non-cognizable one, since the policehave investigated the same along with other cognizable offences viz.,Sections 498A IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is to be deemed to bea cognizable offence and the hands of police are not tied in this regardand the police can very well investigate the offence under Section 494 IPCalso, along with other offences.16. The contention of the petitioner Auxillia that she was awayfrom the family of first and second accused and that she had no links withthem as regards the demand of dowry from the de facto complainant and,therefore, she should be absolved from the liability, in my view, suffersoutright rejection. As already stated, the allegations in the FirstInformation Report go to the effect that third accused, namely, petitionerAuxillia also played a considerable role in the demand of dowry from thede fact complainant and there is no circumstance to infer that she wasaway from the family affairs of first and second accused. She has gotevery opportunity to establish her contention at the time of trial andquashment of the proceedings against her cannot be thought of, at thisstage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. For the foregoing reasons, the irresistible conclusion, tobe arrived at by this Court, is, rejection of contentions of thepetitioners and the complaint is exhaustive in nature as to the point ofterritorial jurisdiction and criminality of all the accused. As such,these petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected CriminalM.P.Nos.1 and 4 of of 2007 in both the petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardixitTo1. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai.2. -do-thro' The Chief Metropolitant Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, W-19 All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc To M/s.Uma Shankari, Advocate, SR.62241.1 cc To M/s.Ram & Ram, Advocate, SR.62048. CRL.O.P.Nos.4332 & 8922 OF 2007RS(CO)RVL 17.10.2007