Misc. Case No. 1244 of 2007 · High Court
Case Details
CRLMC No. 1433 of 2007 & Misc. Case No.1244 of 2007 07. 10.12.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. None appears for the informant-opposite party no.2 inspite of service of notice. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioners in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.24 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No.439 of 2007, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/307/ 506/34 I.P.C and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. The case of the informant as detailed in the F.I.R. as per Annexure-1 is that the informant married the petitioner no.1 on 15.02.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs and after solemnization of the marriage, the in-laws of the informant subjected her to ill-treatment and torture. It was further alleged that after the marriage, the in-laws of the informant treated her as a maid servant and while the informant protested to such acts of her in-laws, she was subjected to torture, both mentally and physically. It was further alleged that the father-in-law of the informant used to give orders and commands unnecessarily and the in-laws of the informant also did not allow her to go with petitioner no.1 at his place of service at Kaniha and at last, on the intervention of the family uks 2 members of the informant, the informant went to Kaniha and stayed there along with her husband in his residential quarter. It was further alleged that the petitioner no.1 used to go for three to four days to her parents’ house, leaving the informant and her son in the quarter at N.T.P.C., Kaniha. It was also alleged that at the instance of the in-laws, the petitioner no.1 tortured and ill-treated the informant and once the petitioner no.1 poured Kerosene oil over the body of the informant, in order to kill her. It was further alleged by the informant that lastly on 24.12.2006, while the informant was reading in her room in the residential quarter at Kaniha, the petitioner No.1 and her son were in the other room. On hearing the sudden crying of her son, when she rushed to the other room, she found her husband (petitioner no.1) was trying to strangulate the child. It was further alleged that when the informant objected to such acts, her husband assaulted her and also tried to strangulate her, by pressing her neck. It was alleged that the son of the informant went to the house of the neighbours and sought their help. It was alleged that the neighbours came and rescued the informant, who thereafter informed her parents of the incident over phone, who came the next day and brought the informant to their house at Bhubaneswar. After registration of the F.I.R., the police carried out investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioners under Sections 498-A/323/506/34 I.P.C and Section 4 of the D. P. Act and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.5.2007, has taken 3 cognizance of the said offences, directing issue of summons to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on false and baseless allegations and the materials collected during investigation does not support the charges made against the present petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that as the alleged occurrence, as detailed in the written report of the informant, took place at Kaniha which is under the jurisdiction of the N.T.P.C. Police Station or Talcher Police Station in the district of Angul, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. by the Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that as the allegations made against the petitioners relates to occurrence in the quarter of the petitioner no.1 at Kaniha, in the district of Angul, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. in Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station is completely without jurisdiction.
Legal Reasoning
a decision of this Court in R. Satyamoorty & Ors. V. State of Orissa, (2009) 44 OCR 840, in support of his contention that as the alleged act of ill-treatment and torture of the informant- opposite party no.2 has taken place in the quarter of petitioner no.1 at Kaniha, and no part of the offence alleged is committed at Bhubaneswar, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. by the Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station is wholly improper and without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed along with all consequential proceedings. 4 In R. Satyamoorty case, this Court while referring to the decision of the apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors -Vrs.– Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 29 OCR (SC) 241, has observed that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed and also Section 178 which provides that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or when an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas, the Supreme Court held that Sections 177 to 186 of the Code which deal with venue and place of trial. Section 117 reiterates the well established common law rule referred to in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol.IX Part-83) that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occurred and which alleged to constitute the crime. In the case of R. Satyamoorty & Ors (supra), the same question arose as to whether the offences alleged in the F.I.R. under Sections 498-A/323/34 I.P.C r/w Section 4 of the D.P.Act having been committed at Mohali in the State of Punjab, the F.I.R. could have been registered at the behest of the informant by the Mahila Police Station at Berhampur. Referring to the various decisions of this Court as well as the 5 apex Court, this Court came to hold that as none of the offences as has been alleged in the F.I.R. have been committed within the jurisdiction of Berhampur Mahila Police Station, the impugned F.I.R. lodged before the Behampur Mahila Police Station cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed the same along with all consequential proceedings. In the present case as the allegations of harassment, torture and ill-treatment of the informant-opposite party no.2 are stated to have taken place at the quarter of petitioner no.1 in Kaniha, in the district of Angul, and no part of the offences alleged has taken place at Bhubaneswar, the impugned F.I.R. could not have been lodged before the Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station. Applying the principles of law as aforestated to the facts of the present case and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of R. Satyamoorty & Ors (supra), the impugned F.I.R. registered as Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.24 of 2007, as well as the corresponding G.R. Case No.439 of 2007, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, as against the present petitioners are hereby quashed. of. CRLMC and the misc. case are accordingly disposed Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. ………….………………… S.C. Parija, J.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon