Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Soniya Soni vs Manish Kumar Soni on 24 June, 2022

                                                                                        TPCR-07-2020
                                              Page 1 of 4

                                                                                                   NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 07 of 2020
Smt. Soniya Soni, W/o Shri Manish Kumar Soni, aged about 24 years, Resident
of Ward No.05, Ravan Bhatha, Near Ram Mandir, Supela, Police Station Supela,
Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                                        ---- Petitioner
                                                Versus
1.      Manish Kumar Soni, S/o Mohanlal Soni, aged about 45 years,
        Occupation- Utensil Shop and Lalit Jewellers, Ward No.14, Charama,
        Police Station Charama, Tahsil and District Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
2.      State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Charama, Civil and Revenue
        District Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                                   ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For petitioner                                    :       Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate
For Respondent No.1                              :        Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate
For Respondent No.2                              :        Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24.06.2022

1. The petitioner (wife) has filed this petition under Section 407 of CrPC

seeking transfer of Criminal Case No.262 of 2016, pending in the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) to the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG).

2. Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

marriage of the petitioner (wife) with the respondent No.01 (husband) was

solemnized on 10.06.2015 and ever since she was subjected to cruelty for or in

connection with demand of dowry, against which she lodged report and FIR

being Crime No.343 of 2015 was registered at Police Station Charama, District

Kanker (CG) for offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and also

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pursuant to which Criminal TPCR-07-2020

Case No.262 of 2016 is pending trial in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

North Bastar, Kanker (CG). It is further submitted that after being victimized for

the above-mentioned matrimonial offence, the petitioner is now residing with her

old aged parents at Durg and the petitioner has filed application under Section

125 (3) of CrPC for recovery of maintenance amount against the respondent

No.01 (husband) before the Family Court, Durg, which is pending consideration.

The petitioner is facing great difficulty in traveling to North Bastar, Kanker for the

purpose of attending trial in the criminal case in these days of price hike. There

is nobody to look after her except her old aged parents and even otherwise most

of witnesses in the criminal case are also residing at Durg and, therefore, in view

of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rupali Devi vs.

State of U.P.1, Criminal Case No.262 of 2016, pending in the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) be transferred to the Court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG).

3. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the

Courts at North Bastar, Kanker is having the jurisdiction to hear the criminal case

lodged by the petitioner and, as such, the present transfer petition deserves to

be dismissed at threshold.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made hereinabove and also went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after getting married with the her

husband (respondent No.01 herein) started residing at her matrimonial home at

Kanker, but on account of matrimonial offence alleged to have been committed

by her husband and in-law, she lodged FIR and took shelter at her parental

1 2019 (5) SCC 384 TPCR-07-2020

house in Durg. Thereafter, she filed application under Section 125 of CrPC for

grant of maintenance against the respondent No.01, which was allowed and she

was directed to be paid maintenance of Rs.3,000/- by the respondent No.01 by

order dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure-A/2), but the respondent No.01 is allegedly

not paying the maintenance amount to her, therefore, she again knock the doors

of Family Court, Durg by filing application under Section 125(3) of CrPC for

recovery of the maintenance amount against the respondent No.01, which is

pending consideration.

6. In the matter of Rupali Devi (supra) their Lordships of Supreme Court

formulated the question of reference in Para-1 of the judgment, which states as

under:

"1. "Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members ?" This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals."

Their Lordships, then proceeded to consider the aforesaid question in

Para-14, which states as under:

"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment;outrage (Abuse, inhuman treatment,indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at TPCR-07-2020

the parental home,there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place."

Finally, their Lordships concluded in Para-16 as under:

"16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would,dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."

7. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid

down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rupali Devi (supra) it is quite

vivid that as in the present case, the petitioner/wife having driven away from her

matrimonial home at Kanker, took shelter with her parents and started residing

at her parental home at Durg, therefore, the Court at Durg would also have the

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for matrimonial offence under Section 498-

A r/w 34 of IPC as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

8. Consequently, it is directed that Criminal Case No.262 of 2016, pending in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) be transferred

to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG) for hearing and

disposal in accordance with law. Parties to appear before that Court on

22.07.2022.