Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

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

..... hy language also is said to have taken place at Delhi. The offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the Respondent No. 2 continued unabated on account of no effort having been made by the Appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the Appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the Appellants over the telephone - it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent No. 3. 2. The marriage of the Appellant No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 took place on 21.04.2003 at Patna. The couple resided at Delhi from 27.04.2003 to 22.05.2003 when the Respondent No. 2/wife left Delhi for her parents' place at Ambikapur. After about 2 1/2 years, her father-Madhusudan Sinha/Respondent No. 3 filed an F.I.R. at Ambikapur alleging that Respondent No. 2/Kiran Sinha has been subjected to cruelty by her husband/Appellant No. 1, elder brother-in-law/Appellant No. 2 and elder sister-in-law/Appellant No. 3, who are therefore to be punished Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Appellants approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Under Section 482 of the Code questioning the territorial juri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 's plight the Appellant made no effort to take her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the High Court held that the offence of cruelty was a continuing offence and the court at Ambikapur had jurisdiction to try. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application Under Section 482 of the Code, the Appellants have approached this Court by way of special leave to appeal. The main contention on behalf of the Appellants was that the F.I.R. did not disclose a continuing offence. The offence, if any, was alleged to have been committed only at Delhi and there was no question of any offence having been committed after the Respondent No. 2 went to stay at Ambikapur. The learned Counsel for the Appellants relied on the decision of this Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside. It is not only that in the interest of justice, while setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court directed the transfer of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, where the wife was staying with her father to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur (vide para 18). 6. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Manish Ratan's case (supra), the learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the offence in the present case cannot be considered to be a continuing offence, if any, and must be taken to have been complete at Delhi and no cause of action can be said to have arisen at Ambikapur. As must necessarily be, the application of law and the consequences must vary from case to c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the Respondent No. 2 continued unabated on account of no effort having been made by the Appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the Appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the Appellants over the telephone. Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view that it cannot be held that the Court at Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. According .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates