Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Jahnavi Tripathi (Dubey) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
ON THE 5th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION NO.12997 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT JAHNAVI TRIPATHI (DUBEY) W/O SHRI ANUJ
TRIPATHI D/O SHRI RAM KISHORE DUBEY, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O
H. NO. 1143/2A, DHANI KI KUTIYA, JAI PRAKASH
NAGAR POLICE STATION ADHARTAL DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRABHAKANT SHUKLA- ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (POLICE)
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANZOOR
AHMED
Signing time: 3/6/2024
12:29:13 PM
2
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
ADHARTAL DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE, POLICE
STATION MAHILA THANA, JABALPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
SHAHPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
7. ANUJ TRIPATHI S/O SHRI A.N. TRIPATHI, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SENIOR
ENGINEER, C/O M. SEKAR FLAT NO. 04, IIND
FLOOR 14 THIRD CROSS GANGA BHAWANI
TEMPLE ROAD MAHADEV PURA BENGALURU
(KARNATAKA) P.C. 560048, OFFICE ADDRESS-
ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2ND
FLOOR BHADHMANE WARD TECHNOLOGY
CENTRE BWTC MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU
(KARNATAKA)
8. SMT. MUNI TRIPATHI W/O LATE SHRI A.N
TRIPATHI, R/O H.NO. 273 ROHIT NAGAR PHASE I
BABADIYA KALAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. KALPANA TRIPATHI W/O SHRI ADITYA
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, H.NO. 273
ROHIT NAGAR PHASE I BABADIYA KALAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VED PRAKASH TIWARI-GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANZOOR
AHMED
Signing time: 3/6/2024
12:29:13 PM
3
This petition came up for hearing on 01.03.2024 and the order was kept
reserved.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the
transfer of investigation of FIR No.0/2018 dated 26.5.2018
under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (now the trial after filing of the
report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. from the Court at Bhopal to
the competent Court at Jabalpur).
2. Zero FIR was lodged in Police Station Adhartal
District Jabalpur at the instance of the petitioner with the
allegations that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized
on 20.2.2017 with respondent No.7-Anuj Tripathi, resident of
Bhopal according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The father
of the petitioner namely Shri Ram Kishore Dubey spent
according to his capacity towards the cash, clothes, utensils,
and gold & silver ornaments, but the in-laws family i.e.
husband-Anuj Tripathi, mother-in-law-Munni Tripathi and
father-in-law-A.N.Tripathi were not satisfied with the dowry
and kept on demanding from the complainant/petitioner to
bring dowry from her parental house. On refusal by the
complainant/petitioner, they used to beat the complainant. The
complainant told all these things to her family members i.e.
mother Meena Dubey, father Ram Kishore Dubey and Mama.
Mama and others visited the in-laws family and made them to
understand, but the in-laws family i.e. husband and parents-in-
law again started saying that in the cancer treatment of father-
in-law A.N.Tripathi, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs had been spent
and that amount be brought by the complainant from her
parents. When the complainant refused to do it, then husband
Anuj Tripathi gave beatings to the complainant and the parents-
in-law kept standing there and at their instance the beatings
were given to the complainant. With these allegations, the FIR
in question was registered. Prima facie offences under Sections
498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act were found to have been committed by husband Anuj
Tripathi, father-in-law A.N.Tripathi and mother-in-law Munni
Tripathi residents of House No.273, Rohit Nagar, Phase-I,
Babadiya Kalan, Bhopal and the FIR No.0/2018 for the offence
under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act was registered on 26.5.2018 in Police
Station Adhartal District Jabalpur. After registration of the
aforesaid FIR, the Police Station, Adhartal transferred the
investigation of the FIR in question to the Police Station
Shahpura District Bhopal. The present writ petition came to be
filed on 8.7.2019. During the pendency of present writ petition,
the investigation in the FIR in question the investigation has
been completed by the Bhopal police and the challan has been
submitted to the Court. The charges have also been framed by
the Court at Bhopal, but the trial has not been commenced so
far.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
respondent No.7-Anuj Tripathi at Jabalpur. The private
respondents had been demanding dowry of Rs.25 lakhs in the
ceremonies held at Jabalpur. The petitioner stayed with her
husband, who was working as Senior Engineer in Ericsson
India Global Services, Bengaluru (Karnataka). On 6.4.2017, the
husband of the petitioner demanded Rs.10 lakhs as dowry for
treatment of his father and at the instance of in-laws gave
beatings to the petitioner on 16.8.2017, 17.1.2018, 15.5.2018,
23.5.2018 and also forced the petitioner for abortion on
29.5.2017. The petitioner was physically assaulted on
15.5.2018 and her life was in danger due to non-fulfillment of
dowry demand. The petitioner tried to Dial No.100 and
received treatment from Dr. Sumant Kumar for the injuries
sustained by her. On 23.5.2018 she came to Jabalpur to her
parental house and took shelter in the parental house. She
lodged a complaint on 26.5.2018 in Police Station Adhartal
District Jabalpur under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and
Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation of the
case was illegally and arbitrarily transferred to the Police
Station Shahpura District Bhopal. The petitioner promptly filed
the present writ petition. Evidently, the miseries and cruelty
meted to the petitioner continued in the mind of the
complainant.
4. At the time of filing of present writ petition, only
investigation was pending in Police Station Shahpura, Bhopal
after being transferred from Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur.
At the relevant time, the petitioner by way of present writ
petition sought transfer of FIR from Police Station Shahpura,
Bhopal to Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur on the ground that
the cause of action accrued to the complainant for lodging the
FIR at Jabalpur. The police station at Bhopal and on filing of
challan and framing of charges, the Court at Bhopal has no
jurisdiction to try the offence in question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the petitioner had no option to save her life, as the behavior
of the private respondents had put the petitioner's life in danger
on account of demand of dowry and non-fulfillment of the
same. The petitioner came from Bengaluru to Jabalpur and
lodged the present FIR. The petitioner had suffered immense
abuse, physical and mental agony inflicted by the private
respondents, but still wanted to save her matrimonial life, but
her husband did not discharge his marital obligations. The
petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to
seek emergency relief at Jabalpur. The husband of the petitioner
through his counsel has already entered appearance in the
aforesaid case i.e. MJC(R) No.1470/2018 before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. The petitioner also filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur where the respondent/husband
on appearance has also engaged his counsel. The aforesaid
application is also pending before the Family Court at Jabalpur.
Later on, the petitioner came to know that the
respondent/husband had also filed an application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal
rights to harass the humiliate the petitioner and to create
evidence, whereas the respondent/husband had inflicted cruelty
for demand of dowry to such an extent that the petitioner's life
was in danger. The said petition was filed at Bhopal and is still
pending.
6. The petitioner has already filed objections under
Section 21(1) of CPC read with Section 19 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bhopal on the ground that in view of Section 19 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the Court at Bhopal has no jurisdiction to
entertain that petition and the Court lacks jurisdiction to
proceed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court
at Jabalpur alone shall have jurisdiction to take cognizance and
proceed in accordance with law under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, if at all the same is maintainable on merits. The
petitioner prayed by way of aforesaid objections that the copy
of the petition be supplied to her so that she may take recourse
to the remedy available to her under the law. The present FIR
was initially lodged in Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur and on
transferred of investigation, the Police Station Shahpura took
cognizance and investigated the same. On filing the report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the Court at Bhopal has framed
charges during the pendency of present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
initially the Police Station Shahpura, Bhopal had no jurisdiction
and on filing of the challan and framing of charges, the Court at
Bhopal has no jurisdiction to try the offence. The petitioner has
suffered physical as well as mental cruelty. The physical cruelty
was committed in the matrimonial house at Bengaluru and even
if the physical cruelty has ceased to occur in the parental house,
but mental trauma and psychological distress caused by the acts
of husband and in-laws family still continued. That mental
trauma and psychological distress had compelled the petitioner
to leave the matrimonial house at Bengaluru and take shelter
with her parents. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty
and abuse would continue in the parental house, even though
there may not be any overt-act of physical cruelty at parental
house. Offence under Section 498-A of IPC undoubtedly covers
both mental as well as physical cruelty to the petitioner, as
mental and physical well being of the petitioner was in issue. In
this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the law laid down in Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmed and others,
Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No.106/2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
6.1.2020. The paras No.14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment
are produced here as under:-
"14. ...Even if the acts of physical cruelty
committed in the matrimonial house may have
ceased and such acts do not occur at the
parental home, there can be no doubt that the
mental trauma and the psychological distress
caused 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.
15. ...The provisions. contained in Section
498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly,
encompass both mental as well as the physical
well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the
wife may have an underlying element of an
emotional distress and mental agony. Her
sufferings at the parental home though may be
directly attributable to commission of acts of
cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial
home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences
of the acts committed at the matrimonial home.
Such consequences, by itself, would amount to
distinct offences committed at the parental
home where she has taken shelter.. The adverse
effects on the mental health in the parental
home though on account of the acts committed
in the matrimonial home would, in our
considered view, amount to commission of
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at
the parental home. The consequences of the
cruelty committed at the matrimonial home
results in repeated offences being committed at
the parental home. This is the kind of offences
contemplated under Section 179 CrPC which
would squarely be applicable to the present
case as an answer to the question raised.
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 498- A of the Penal
Code."
In the aforesaid case of Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmed (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the view earlier expressed in
Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
Criminal Appeal No.71/2012, decided on 9.4.2019. The ratio
of Rupali Devi's case (supra) has been consistently followed
by the Courts.
8. Evidently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
appreciated the mental cruelty, which is still continuing in the
mind of the petitioner/wife after her coming to the parental
house. Even the silence of the wife/petitioner may have an
underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony.
Her sufferings at the parental house though may be directly
attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at
the matrimonial home would undoubtedly, be the consequences
of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such
consequences would amount to distinct offences committed at
the parental home, where she has taken shelter. The adverse
effects on the mental health in the parental home though on
account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would
amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section
498-A of IPC.
9. Now the point in respect of jurisdiction in terms of
Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is no
more res integra and is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rupali Devi's case (supra) followed in Ruhi
Vs. Anees Ahmed (supra).
10. Bare perusal of Section 178 of Cr.P.C. would show
that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an
offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly
in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a
continuing offence, and continues to be committed in more
local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in
different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court
having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. In the instant
case, the mental cruelty is still continuing in the mind of the
petitioner/wife in the parental house due to the acts of her
husband in the matrimonial house. In view of ratio of both
judgments in Rupali Devi's case (supra) and Ruhi Vs. Anees
Ahmed (supra), such mental cruelty falls under the definition
of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC, as the same is the
consequence of physical torture inflicted upon the petitioner in
matrimonial house. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. is necessary to be
quoted in this regard. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"179. Offence triable where act is done or
consequence ensues.--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 tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction such
thing has been done or such consequence has
ensued."
11. In my considered opinion, the case falls under the
provisions of Section 179 of Cr.P.C. Initially the Police Station
at Jabalpur and after filing of challan and framing of charges,
the Court at Jabalpur had jurisdiction to carry out investigation
and proceed with the trial. Since the cruelty has been done to
the petitioner at Jabalpur, therefore the trial, which is pending at
Bhopal needs to be transferred to the competent Court at
Jabalpur.
12. Per contra, learned State Counsel referred to para
No.4 of the reply, wherein stand has been taken by the
respondents No.1 to 6 that initially the complaint was filed by
the petitioner before the Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur
against her husband and in-laws with the allegations that the
incident took place at Bhopal. Some altercations took place and
beatings were also given by the in-laws family at Bhopal. For
ready reference, the entire paragraph No.4 is reproduced as
under:-
"4. The answering respondents most
respectfully submit that, the petitioner has filed
a complaint before the Police Station Adhartal
Jabalpur against her husband and in laws with
regard to demand of dowry and she also
alleges that they regular voluntarily causing
hurt to the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention
here that in the copy of the compliant i.e. filed
with the writ petition at page 21 to 23 in which
she categorically stated and alleges the entire
takes place at Bhopal. In the same compliant
She also alleges that there was some
altercation and she was also beaten by her in
laws and they also make demanded of Rs. 10
lakhs after going though the compliant dated
26.05.2018 the entire incident at Bhopal there
was no part of the incident shown in the
complaint that ever has taken place in the
concern described jurisdiction of Police
Station Adhartal Jabalpur. Soon upon after
lodging the complaint concerned P.S.
registered her complaint U/s 154 and the
registration was done. Copy of the FIR/ Form
No. 154 is marked as Annexure P/4 at page 24
for kind perusal, in which at coloum No. 5 (B)
the place of the incident has categorically
stated "in laws house of the complainant".
Thereafter, the complaint was registered at
zero and after due investigation the matter was
transferred to the concerned Police Station i.e.
Shahpura Bhopal. Copy of the document of
Police Station Adhartal 8 dated 28.05.2018 is
filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1."
On the strength of the aforesaid stand, the learned counsel for
the respondents No.1 to 6 submitted that the police at Bhopal
had the jurisdiction and on filing of challan and framing of
charges, the Court at Bhopal has jurisdiction to try the offence
in question.
13. Dehors the factual matrix on record, admittedly
after coming from the matrimonial house, the petitioner is
living at Jabalpur in her parental house. The trauma of physical
torture is still persisting in the mind of the petitioner as a
mental torture while living in her parental house at Jabalpur. In
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rupali Devi's case (supra) and Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmed
(supra), the issue is no more res integra and initially the Police
Station at Jabalpur had the jurisdiction to investigate the case
and only the competent Court at Jabalpur has the jurisdiction to
try the offence in question arising out of complaint made by the
petitioner.
14. The objection as regards the maintainability of writ
petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact that even if
writ petition is filed for the relief in question, Section 407 of
Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to for transfer of the trial. At
the time of filing of present writ petition, only the investigation
was pending, therefore the present writ petition was
maintainable at that time. During the pendency of the present
writ petition, report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted
to the Court and on framing of charges, the case is pending at
the Court at Bhopal. Even otherwise the issue of alternative
remedy in view of Section 407 of Cr.P.C. would not be attracted
in the present case, as no trial was pending when the present
writ petition was filed in this Court. Since the transferred
investigation was unilaterally done by the police at Jabalpur,
therefore the transfer of the investigation was wholly without
jurisdiction. Firstly, there was no alternative remedy available
to the petitioner at the time of filing of present writ petition and
secondly even if Section 407 of Cr.P.C. was to be pressed into
service, the same would not have diluted the ratio of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rupali Devi's case (supra), wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically submitted that the
wife can lodge FIR on the basis of cause of action accrued to
her. The mental cruelty suffered by the wife is also included
under the ambit of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC,
therefore a right has been created in favour of the petitioner to
enforce her right at Jabalpur. The rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. The
availability of remedy in terms of Section 407 of Cr.P.C. cannot
be held to be an efficacious remedy in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Firstly, at the time of filing of
present writ petition, there was no trial pending before the
Court at Bhopal and secondly after filing of the present writ
petition, the police at Bhopal submitted the report under
Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and the Court at Bhopal proceeded to
frame charge. The issue of jurisdiction goes to the very roots of
the case. Firstly the police at Bhopal had no jurisdiction to
investigate the offence and secondly the Court at Bhopal has no
jurisdiction to try the offence in question.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this writ
petition is accepted. The impugned transfer of investigation of
Zero FIR dated 26.5.2018 lodged at Police Station Adhartal,
Jabalpur to Police Station Shahpura, Bhopal is held to be illegal
and as a consequence of submission of report under Section
173 of Cr.P.C. and framing of charge the proceedings need to be
remitted now by transferring the trial from the Court at Bhopal
to the competent Court at Jabalpur.
16. Let the copy of this order be sent to the concerned
Court at Bhopal so as to ensure that the record of the case be
sent to the competent Court at Jabalpur at the earliest.
17. Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, this writ
petition stands allowed.
(Raj Mohan Singh)
Judge
05/03/2024
Ansari
