M SRIDHAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been invoked against a Judgment in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India refusing to grant any relief against registration of Crime No. 109/1995 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station and investigation by C.B.C.I.D., Tirupathi.

(2.) The 1st petitioner-appellant is Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise at Jalgaon in Maharashtra State. 4th respondent herein who is an Inspector of Police at Madanapalle in Chittoor District of the State gave his daughter in marriage to him (1st petitioner) on 24-11-1993, it is not in dispute, at Madanapalle. On 28-2-1994, Srilatha (4th respondent's daughter) who was given in marriage to the 1st petitioner allegedly joined him at Jalgaon and lived with him for about 15 months. According to the petitioners, she committed suicide at Jalgaon and Crime No. 44/1995 was registered at Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When, however, the 4th respondent got the information of the incident, he gave a report to the police at Madanapalle at 5.00 p.m. on 2-8-1995 of the death of his daughter and alleged as follows :- "My daughter namely Shreelatha had married with M. Sridhar Reddy on 24-11-1993 at Madanapalli. At the time of marriage, I have promised to give Rs. 10,00,000.00 (ten lakhs) in cash and gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,00,000.00 (Rs. three lakhs) to my son-in-law. Those people have asked me for the same. At the time of marriage of my daughter, I have given Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rs. five lakhs) in cash and Gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,00,000.00 (Rs. Three lakhs) to my son-in-law and I further promised to give the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rs. Five lakhs) within a period of three years. About four months back, the father of my son-in-law, name Obul Reddy, mother Shreedevi and aunt Kausalya had conversation with me on telephone and they have asked me to give a Maruthi Car. I have told them that this was not agreed at the time of marriage and financially I am unable to give a Maruthi Car. After this incident, those people started ill-treating my daughter Shreelatha physically and mentally. This fact has been told to me by my daughter on phone and whenever I met her personally. In the same ill-treatment, my son-in-law's sister namely Latha Sreenivas Reddy had also been participated. On 1-8-95, I spoke to my daughter Shreelatha thrice on Telephone between 9.45 and 13.00 hrs. from Tirupathi. Then she told me on telephone that if you don't give the remaining Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rs. five lakhs) and a Maruthi car, they will kill her or she may have to return home. Then I and my wife Easwaramma told that we will buy and bring the Maruthi Car within one month. Then my daughter told me that her mother-in-law Shreedevi, father-in-law Obul Reddy, Kausalya and Latha are mentally torturing her for remaining Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rs. five lakhs) and Maruthi car and my husband is harassing on this issue. So she asked me to arrange the money and car as soon as possible. I promised to do so. On 1-8-95, at about 8.30 p.m., my son-in-law Sreedhar Reddy has phoned me and told that suddenly Shreelatha is ill and therefore you come here immediately. On questioning again and again about the condition of my daughter my son-in-law has not told anything on phone. To day on 2-8-95 at 6.30 in the morning I have made a telephone call from Bangalore Airport to my son-in-law and at that time he hold me that Shreelatha has been dead, as she has committed suicide. He has not told any reason about committal of suicide. My daughter has been killed by her husband Sreedhar Reddy, his father Obul Reddy, his mother Shreedevi, his aunt Kausalya and his sister Lata, for the reason of non-payment of Dowry. Therefore, I have to take legal action against all of them. This is my report." It has transpired, however, that on coming to know about the dowry death case registered as Crime No. 109/1995 at Madanapalle I Town Police Station, Jalgaon police transferred the crime registered at Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon (Crime No. 44/1995 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.) to the Madanapalle Police and in due course, the C.B.C.I.D. has taken over the case for investigation and it is presently being investigated by the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Tirupathi. Questioning, thus, the registration of the case at Madanapalle P.S., petitioners the husband and the father-in-law of the victim Shreelatha - have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on grounds, inter alia, that no cause of action of the case has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Madanapalle I town P.S., and sine the death has taken place in Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra, all matters concerning Shreelatha's death have to be investigated by Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon. Learned single Judge has, however, held as follows :- "It is now well-settled that investigation into a crime by the police authorities cannot be intercepted or stopped under any circumstances. The suicide committed by Sreelatha, daughter of the 4th respondent at Jalgaon in Maharashtra State, as per the reports lodged by the 4th respondent, both at Jalgaon and Madanapalle, is sequel to the demands for dowry made by the 1st petitioner and his relatives and, therefore, it is incidental to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the circumstances when there is basis in the reports for the alleged demands made by the 1st petitioner and his relations at Madanapalle for payment of dowry from the 4th respondent, the police authorities at Madanapalle have also got jurisdiction to inquire into the crime and investigate the same. In that view of the matter, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police at Jalgaon alone have got the jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate the crime, as per the provisions of Clause (4) of Standing Order No. 495 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, cannot be countenanced. In fact, on a representation given by the 1st petitioner, the case has been made over to the C.B.C.I.D. for investigation and the Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D. at Tirupathi is investigating into the case. Further, the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon District by communication dated 26-10-1995 informed the Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad that the investigation at Jalgaon has been completely transferred to Madanapalle police by his (Superintendent of Police, Jalagaon) letter dated 21-9-1995 and the entire investigation at their end in Jalgaon has been closed. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be simultaneous investigations into the same crime at two places cannot be accepted."

(3.) Narration of events leading to Shreelatha having been given in marriage to the 1st petitioner-appellant at Madanapalle, demand of dowry, payment of the part thereof and further dowry demands although Shreelatha stayed during that period with the 1st respondent-appellant at Jalgaon clearly show that dowry demands were made by the petitioner-appellants upon the father of Shreelatha at Madanapalle. Since, however, Shreelatha was given in marriage to the 1st petitioner-appellant who stayed in Jalgaon, her sufferance leading ultimately to either homicide or suicide followed at her husband's place where she stayed after marriage. Any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, has been defined as 'Dowry' in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and has been made punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5 years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 15,000.00 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more, by Section 3 of the said Act. The Indian Penal Code has received a new provision by way of an amendment by Act No. 43/1986, i.e., Section 304-B, which reads as follows :- "304B. Dowry death : (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation : For the purpose of sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be lass than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has also undergone an amendment and Section 133-B has been inserted therein by the said Amendment Act which reads as follows :- "113B. Presumption as to dowry death : When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation : For the purpose of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." Above provisions, thus, clearly show that 'dowry death 'is different form the ordinary homicide or suicide in the sense that it is presumed to be attended by a demand of dowry and thus if it is a homicide, the attended circumstances and events as to the marriage and demand and payment of dowry before, at or after the marriage become a part of the transaction constituting the offence. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains the provision as respect jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in enquiries and trials and Section 184 therein states : "Where - (a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offences by virtue of the provisions of Section 219, Section 220 or Section 221, or (b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of Section 223, the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences." Section 186 therein provides : "Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided - (a) ... ... ... ... (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued." Investigating jurisdiction of the police has been made co-terminus with the jurisdiction of the trial Court by a specific provision in this behalf in sub-section (1) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal procedure in these words : "Any Officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. "Section 179 which falls under Chapter XIII says that - "When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tired by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. "Section 182 contains a provision as respect offence committed by letters etc., and states : "Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practiced by means of letters or tele-communication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received : and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person. "We have made a cursory survey of the relevant provisions which, in our opinion, provide the idea whether Madanapalle Police Station has rightly entertained the complaint of the father of the victim girl and we have no hesitation in concluding that in case of a dowry death and particularly when there are clear allegations by the father of the victim girl that petitioners demanded monies by way of dowry and received the same in part at madanapalle and through his victim daughter conveyed further demands to him to Madanapalle, Madanapalle Police committed no error of jurisdiction when it entertained the complaint and registered the crime for investigation. It is a clear case in which all transaction pertaining to demand of dowry and payment thereof have taken place at Madanapalle and since the father of the victim girl has not been able, as alleged, to meet the demand, the victim has allegedly suffered the torture at the hands of the petitioner-appellants in Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra and met the ultimate death at the said place. The jurisdiction to investigate, thus, in terms of Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being co-extensive with the Jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into or try the case as contemplated under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be denied to Madanapalle police. In any case, since there are allegations that the victim had informed her father (informant) who was at Madanapalle of the demands by tele communication, there is no warrant for objection by the petitioner-appellants to question the jurisdiction of the Madanapalle police. Facts as above clearly show that Jillapet Poti Police, Jalgaon only acted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to inquire and report on suicide and not the case of dowry death or the alleged murder along with the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Such a case has been registered only with Madanapalle police. Records of any enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant materials for an effective investigation of the case, which the father of the victim girl has lodged with Madanapalle Police. The District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon has thus committed no mistake or impropriety in handing over the records pertaining to the case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Madanapalle police.