SATHEESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in Crl. M. C. 1468/2009 are the accused in C. C. 494/2007 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Third respondent is the de facto complainant therein. She is the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 2068/2009. Respondents therein are the petitioners in Crl. M. C. 1468/2009. Crl. M. C. 1468/2009 is filed to quash Annexure D First Information Report No. 55/2006 of Medical college Police Station, registered on receipt of Annexure C complaint filed by the third respondent before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and forwarded for investigation under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate. After investigation Annexure E final report was filed alleging that petitioners in crl. M. C. 1468/2009 committed the offence under Section 498a read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is the admitted case that first petitioner married third respondent on 18-1-2004 at Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the revision petitioner that at the time of marriage, 15 soverigns of gold was given to first petitioner in the Crl. M. C. , when she was residing with the petitioners in the matrimonial house at Coimbatore with the knowledge and consent of petitioners 2 and 3, alleging that the dowry given was insufficient, Rs. 5 lakhs more was demanded and when third respondent did not yield for the demand, she was treated with cruelty, mentally and physically during the period from 18-1 -2004 to 7-5-2005, the day on which she was sent back to her parental home at Thiruvananthapuram and all the petitioners in the Crl. M. C. thereby committed the offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence based on the final report and issued summons to the petitioners. Petitioners filed the Criminal M. C. under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure contending that even if the allegations in Annexure C complaint are accepted, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and as the prosecution case is that third respondent after the marriage was taken to the matrimonial home at Coimbatore and she was residing there till 7-5-2005 and the cruelty alleged is during that period, the alleged cruelty could only be at Coimbatore and Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and therefore the cognizance taken and all the proceedings taken on Annexure E final report is to be quashed. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2004 8 SCC 100, ramesh and others v. State of T. N. , 2005 3 SCC 507, manish Ratan and others v. State of M. P. and another, 2007 1 SCC 262 and bhuraram and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 1 SCC (Cr) 109 it was argued that on identical facts the Supreme Court, finding that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the concerned magistrate, who had taken cognizance, quashed the complaint with liberty to the wife to file a complaint before the competent court and therefore the same procedure is to be followed and the case is to be quashed. As the Supreme Court in manish Ratan and others' case (supra) finding that part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who had taken cognizance, case was transferred to the other court which has also jurisdiction to try the case, as an alternative plea petitioners sought to transfer the case to a court in Palghat district, which is nearer to Coimbatore.

(2.) THIRD respondent, finding that the complaint and the final report do not specifically disclose any cruelty meted out to the third respondent at thiruvananthapuram, filed C. M. P. 2890/2009 before the trial Magistrate under section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the mental cruelty inflicted by the first petitioner was not confined to the period when she was residing at the matrimonial home but it continued at Thiruvananthapuram also and therefore the period in the charge framed by the court is to be altered to that extent. In that application third respondent also contended that there is material as against the 6th respondent shown therein, who is not facing trial as an accused in the case and contended that charge is to be framed against him also. Under Annexure A-4 order in Crl. R. P. 2068/2009, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Crl. R. P. 2068/2009 is filed challenging Annexure A-4 order.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in crl. M. C. 1468/2009 and learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in crl. R. P. 2068/2009 who is the third respondent in Crl. M. C. 1468/2009 were heard.