http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT. SUJATA MUKHERJEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/04/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present: Hon’bleMr. Justice G.N. Ray Hon’bleMr. Justice G.T. Nanavati S.K. Gambhir, Adv. for the appellant Anoop Chaudhary,  Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath  Singh, Advs. for State of M.P. for the Respondent K.M.K. Nair, and S.K. Mehta, Advs. for the Respondent  O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered:      These twoappealsare directed against the order dated 31.8.89passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Courtdisposing of Criminal Revision  No. 481 of 1989 and CriminalRevision No. 463/89.Criminal  Revision No.481/89 was  preferred by all the five  respondents against  refusal by  the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to transferthe case from Raipur to Raigarh.  Criminal RevisionNo. 463/89  waspreferred by four  of  the  respondents  challenging the  assumption  of jurisdiction ofthe Chief judicial magistrate, Raipur in the complaint madeby theappellant for offences under Section 498  Aand  506  B  and  323  of  Indian  Penal  Code. The respondents arethe husband, parents-in-law andtwo sisters- in-law of  the appellant  Sujata Mukherjee.  The gist of the allegation of  the appellant,  Sujata Mukherjee is that  on accountof  dowry  demands,  she  had  been  Maltreated and humiliated notonly in the house of the in-laws at Raigarh but asa consequence  of suchevents,the  husband of the appellant had  also come  to the  houseof  her parents  at Raipur and had also assaulted her.      The respondents  contended before the  learned  chief Judicial Magistrate  Raipur that  the criminalcase was not maintainable  before   the  said   learned  Chief   Judicial Magistrate because  thecauseof action took place only at raigarhwhich  was outside  theterritorial  jurisdiction of the learned  Magistrateat Raipur. A Prayer wasalso made to quash the  summons issued  by  the  learned  Chief  judicial Magistrate  byentertaining  the  said complaint  ofSmt. Mukherjee. As the ChiefJudicial Magistrate wasnot inclined either to quashthe summons or to transfer the criminalcase to thecompetent Court at Raigarh,  the aforesaid criminal revision  petitions   were  filed;   one  by  all  thefive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

respondents andanotherby fourof the respondents excluding the husband presumably because there was specific allegation againstthe  husband that  the husbandthat the husband had also gone  to Raipur  an had  assaultedthe appellant and as such  husbandcould  not   plead   want   of territorial jurisdiction. Both  thesaid  criminal revisions  casehave been disposed of by a common order dated 31.8.89 by theHigh Court. The  high Courthaving held   that excepting against the husband, the complaint against other respondents related to  the incidents  taking  place  at  Raigarh. Hence, the criminal  caseon  the basisof  complaint  made  by the appellant  wasnot  maintainable  against  the said  other respondents atRaipur but suchcase was maintainable so far as the husband of the appellant, namely, Sri S.S.  Mukherjee is concerned.      Atthe  hearing of theseappeals,  Mr.  Gambhir, the learnedcounsel appearing forthe appellant  has submitted that  it  willbe  evident  from  thecomplaint  that the appellant has  alleged that  she had been subjected to cruel treatment persistentlyat Raigarh  andalso  at Raipur and incident taking place at  Raipur is  not an isolated event, but consequential to the seriesof incidents taking place at Raigarh. Therefore, theHigh Court was wrong inappreciating the scope of the complaint and proceeded on thefootingthat severalisolated  events   had been  place at Raigarh and on isolated incident  had taken  place  at Raipur.  Hence the Criminal case  filed in the court  ofthe  Chief  Judicial Magistrate,  Raipur   was  only  maintainableagainst the respondent husband  against whom some over act at Raipur was alleged. But  such case was not  maintainableagainst the other respondents.      Inthis connection, Mr. Gambhir has drawn our attention to  Section  178  of  the  Code of  Criminal  Procedure  in particular clauses  [b]and  [c] of  Section 178 clauses [b] envisages that’where an offence is committed partly in one local area  andpartly in another" suchoffencecan be tried by a  Court having  jurisdiction over  any suchlocal areas. Clause c contemplates that ’where an offence isa continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas:then such offence  can be   tried  by a Court havingjurisdiction over any of such local areas.      Mr. Gambhir  has submitted that complaint made by the appellant  Sujata   Mukherjee  discloses  offence  committed partly in  one local  area and partly in another local area. The complaint also discloses that the offence was continuing one having beencommitted in more localareas and one of the local areas  being Raipur,  thelearnedMagistrate at Raipur had  jurisdiction   toproceed  withthe   criminalcase instituted in such court.      Mr. AnoopChoudhary, learned senior  counsel appearing for the State has  submitted that clause [b] of Section 178 is not attracted but ifthis Court is inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Gambhir that the offence was continuing on and   the episode  at Raipur  was onlya  sequence  of the continuing offence of harassment and ill treatment meted out to thecomplainant, clause  [c] of  the Section  178 may be attracted.  Mr.  Choudhary  has  submitted  that  from the complaint it  cannot bereasonably heldthat all the accused had committed  the offence  partly in one area and partly in anotherlocal area. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to apply; clause  [b] of  Section 178  of the  Code of Criminal procedure. In our view,there is force in such submission of Mr. Choudhary.      Despite  servicebeing  effected  on   the   private respondents, no one has  appeared for any of of the accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

respondents. Wehave taken intoconsideration  the complaint filed by  the appellant and  it  appears  to  us  that the complaint reveals  a continuingoffenceof mal treatment and humiliation meted  out to  the appellant in thehands of all the accused  respondents and  in such continuing offence, on some occasionsall the respondents had  takenpart  and on other occasion, one of the  respondents  hadtaken  part. Therefore, clause [c] of Section 178 ofthe code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted.We, therefore, set aside the impugned orderof theHigh Court  anddirectthe  learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate,  Raipur  to  proceed  with the criminal case.Since the  matter is pending for long, steps should be  taken to  expedite the  hearing. The appeals are accordingly allowed.