A court where the wife takes shelter after cruelty may try Section 498A offences.

Sujata Kumari alleged that she married Petitioner No. 1, Pappu Kumar, on 17 March 2013 according to Hindu rites and thereafter resided at her matrimonial home in Village Sithauta, District Vaishali.

She alleged dowry-related cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives, including demands for jewellery, television, refrigerator, furniture and other articles.

She further alleged that the accused persons assaulted her, sprinkled kerosene on her and attempted to set her on fire, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents.

The complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 3735 of 2014 before the competent court at Saran.

After recording her solemn affirmation and the statements of three inquiry witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate, Saran, found a prima facie case under Sections 323, 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioners.

The accused, who were the husband and his relatives, invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 26 May 2015, principally contending that the alleged acts occurred in Vaishali and that the Saran court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Whether the Judicial Magistrate at Saran had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and issue process for offences under Sections 323, 498A and 494 IPC, when the principal acts of alleged cruelty occurred at the matrimonial home in Vaishali?

Whether the alleged cruelty under Section 498A IPC constituted a continuing offence or produced consequences within the jurisdiction of Saran so as to attract Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the order dated 26 May 2015 issuing process against the petitioners warranted interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Section 177 Cr.P.C., which prescribes that an offence ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the court within whose jurisdiction it was committed; Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C., which permit trial in any of several jurisdictions where an offence is partly committed, is continuing, consists of acts in different places, or where the consequence of an act ensues in another jurisdiction.

Relying on State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, (1972) 2 SCC 890, the Court stated that a continuing offence is one involving a continuing breach or omission, with the offence recurring so long as the disobedience continues.

Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relative, including dowry-related harassment and wilful conduct causing grave injury or danger to the woman’s physical or mental health.

The Court relied principally on Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384, which held that a court at the place where a wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home may, depending on the facts, have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A IPC.

The Court also considered Amarendu Jyoti v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 12 SCC 362, relied upon by the petitioners, but applied the later principle in Rupali Devi.

The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on the ordinary rule in Section 177 Cr.P.C. was insufficient because Sections 178 and 179 create jurisdictional exceptions where the offence is continuing or its consequences ensue elsewhere.

On the complaint’s allegations, the complainant was subjected not merely to isolated acts of assault but to sustained physical and mental cruelty, including an alleged attempt to set her on fire, which compelled her to flee and take shelter with her parents.

The Court treated the continuing emotional distress and psychological consequences of the alleged matrimonial cruelty as consequences occurring at the place where the complainant took shelter.

Accordingly, the Saran court was held to possess concurrent jurisdiction under Section 179 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding that the matrimonial home and several alleged acts were situated in Vaishali.

Since the Magistrate had considered the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation and the inquiry witnesses’ statements and had found a prima facie case, the High Court found no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was therefore dismissed, and the order dated 26 May 2015 issuing process under Sections 323, 498A and 494 IPC was upheld.

The trial court was directed to proceed with the case and conclude the trial expeditiously without unnecessary delay.

No order as to costs was made.