IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.302 of 2002
(Against the judgment and order
dated 25th January 2002 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge,
Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 10
of 2001)
=======================================================
1. Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha son of late Nand Kishore
Prasad.
2. Bachhi Devi wife of Satya Narayan Pd. Sinha.
3. Krishna Murari Sinha.
4. Krishna Kanhaiya Kumar Sinha.
5. Krishna Gopal Sinha all sons of Satya Narayan Prasad
Sinha.
All residents of Jeetwarpur Railway Colony, Qr. No.
166B Samastipur, P.S. and Dist. Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sushila Devi daughter of Late Ram Chandra Prasad,
resident of village Ajhaur, P.S. Neema Chandpura,
District Begusarai.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
with
Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2002
=======================================================
Krishna Kumar Sinha son of Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha,
resident of Jeetwarpur Rail Colony Qr. No. 166B,
Samastipur, P.S. and District- Samastipur.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sushila Devi daughter of Late Ram Chandra Prasad,
resident of village- Ajhaur, P.S. Neema Chandpura,
District- Bugusarai.
…. …. Opposite party/s
=======================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. REV. No. 302 of 2002)
(In CR. REV. No. 354 of 2002)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Manbash, Adv.
For the Opposite
Party/s : Mr. Vijay Kr @ VKS Singh,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 2
Adv.
: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP.
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 and Cr.
Revision No. 354 of 2002 arise out of judgment
and order dated 25th January 2002 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr.
Appeal No. 10 of 2001 by which the appeal has
been dismissed with modification in the
sentences to the effect that in case of
default of payment of fine on the part of the
appellants, instead of rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one month each, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month, as such both these revision
applications have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 has
been filed by the relatives of the husband of
the complainant, whereas, Cr. Revision No. 354
of 2002 has been filed by the husband of the
complainant, opposite party no. 2 in both the
revision applications.
3. The prosecution case, in brief,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 3
is that the complainant-opposite party no. 2
was married to Krishna Kumar Sinha, the
petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002 on
12.6.1987 according to ‘Vaidik’ rituals.
During the course of marriage, the mother and
the brother of the complainant presented 10
‘Bhar’ gold ornaments, 20 ‘Bhar’ silver
ornaments and several utensils to the
petitioners but in spite of that the
petitioners started demanding Rs.25000/- and a
scooter. She was subjected to various types of
torture for the fulfillment of the demand. She
went to her matrimonial home after marriage
and returned to her Naihar after a period of 9
days. She again went to her Sasural Jitwarpur
Railway Colony within the town and police
station of Samastipur on the eve of Dashahara
and stayed there for three months. During the
period of 1988-89, she remained in her sasural
for a period of about nine months. During this
period, the petitioners always abused and
assaulted her for dowry. They also threatened
to kill her if their demands are not
fulfilled. In the month of Aasin, 1989, she
returned to her Naihar with her brother. In
the meantime, in the year 1988 the husband and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 4
mother-in-law of the complainant wrote a
letter to the mother of the complainant with
threatening and the demand of motor-cycle was
exactly repeated. On 28.1.1990 the father-in-
law of the complainant sent a letter to the
complainant through Krishna Murari Sinha,
Debar that her mother-in-law was seriously ill
and had been admitted in the railway hospital
and asked her to come there for looking after
her. She immediately went to Samastipur with
her Dewar and rendered the services to her
mother-in-law. The mother-in-law became
perfectly well, thereafter, the petitioners
again started assaulting and torturing the
complainant. After 6-7 months, the complainant
was ousted from her matrimonial home. She
returned to her mother’s home alone. It has
further been alleged that she was not directed
to take her ornaments and cloths. The
relatives of Naihar of the complainant tried
to make the petitioners understand but in
vain. Immediately before filing the complaint
petition the complainant came to know that her
husband, petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 354 of
2002 has eloped with a married girl. The
complainant suffered mental agony and in her
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 5
helplessness and inhuman behaviour of the
petitioners drove her to commit suicide, she
has to file the petition of complaint. The
complainant is living with her mother and
brother and has also lost her mental balance.
She filed complaint case no. 406 C of 1994 in
the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Begusarai on 8.6.1994.
4. After taking the statement of
the complainant on solemn affirmation, the
case was transferred to the Court of SDJM.
After enquiry, the petitioners were summoned.
Later on, after trial the husband-accused has
been convicted under Section 498 A IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment thereof he
has further been directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. The
other petitioners have also been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year each and to pay a
fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of
payment thereof to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month each.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 6
Thereafter, the accused- petitioners preferred
Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2001 in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge. After hearing both the
parties, the appeal has been dismissed with
modification in the sentence that in case of
default in paying fine they would undergo
simple imprisonment for one month and the
other sentences remained unaltered and were
confirmed. Thereafter, all the accused except
the husband of the complainant have filed Cr.
Revision No. 302 of 2002 and the husband-
accused has filed Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002
as aforesaid.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for opposite
party no.2.
6. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment
and order on three grounds, namely,
territorial jurisdiction, limitation and
cruelty.
7. It has been submitted that
according to the complaint case, the
complainant was tortured by the petitioners
for fulfillment of their demand of dowry of
Rs.25000/- and a scooter and later on the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 7
demand was made for money and motor -cycle.
According to complaint petition, the
complainant went to her sasural at Samastipur
with the petitioner, Krishna Murari Sinha in
pursuance to letter dated 28.1.1990 to look
after her mother-in-law. She went there and
looked after her mother-in-law and when she
recovered, all the accused again tortured her.
She remained in her Sasural and after 6-7
months she was ousted from her matrimonial
home meaning thereby she returned to her
mother’s house in the year 1990 itself,
whereas, the complaint- petition has been
filed on 8.6.1994 after a period of three
years as such the learned Magistrate should
not have taken cognizance as the period of
limitation has expired and secondly on the
ground that the complaint case has been filed
in the Session Division at Begusarai, whereas,
the occurrence has taken place in the session
division of Samastipur. In support of his
contention he has referred to the decision of
Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Modi vs.
Sanjay Jain & Ors, reported in [2009] ACR 715
in which it has been held that cause of action
is a fundamental element to confer
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 8
jurisdiction upon any Court and which has to
be proved by plaintiff to support his right to
a judgment of the Court. To constitute
territorial jurisdiction, whole or a part of
cause of action must have arisen within
territorial jurisdiction of Court and same
must be decided on basis of averments made in
complaint without embarking upon an enquiry as
to correctness or otherwise of said facts. If
Court is prima facie of opinion that whole or
a part of cause of action has arisen in its
jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance
of complaint. There is no need to ascertain
that allegations made are true in fact.
8. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that even if
the cognizance has been taken after the period
of limitation, the learned Magistrate should
have applied its mind and should have condoned
the delay but in this case the delay has not
been condoned under Section 478 Cr.P.C. and on
this ground also the cognizance and the
proceeding are not in accordance with law. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon
a decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr. Vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 9
Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in [2008] ACR
405 in which it has been held that while
considering the applicability of Section 468
to the complaints made by the victims of
matrimonial offences, the Court can invoke
Section 473 and can take cognizance of an
offence after expiry of the period of
limitation keeping in view the nature of
allegations, the time taken by the police in
investigation and the fact that the offence of
cruelty is a continuing offence and affects
the society at large. To put it differently,
in cases involving matrimonial offences the
Court should not adopt a narrow and pedantic
approach and should, in the interest of
justice, liberally exercise power under
Section 473 for extending period of
limitation.
9. Learned appellate court has
dealt with the point of limitation in
paragraph 19 of its judgment which reads as
follows:-
“19. ….. It appears
from the petition of complaint
that some days before filing of
the complaint petition, the
complainant came to know that
her husband eloped with a
married lady. She has also
stated about it in her
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 10deposition, which was the cause
of her frustration and which
resulted into filing of the
petition of complaint by her. In
this view of the matter, it
cannot be said that the
complaint is barred by
limitation. Moreover, it has
been held in the case of Arun
Vyas versus Anita Vyas reported
in 2000(1) BBCJ, IV-32 that the
bar to taking cognizance after
the period of limitation where a
wife complaints that she has
been subjected to cruelty in
terms of section 498 A of the
I.P.C, the court may take
cognizance of an offence, even
after expiry of period of
limitation in the interest of
justice and Section 473 of the
Cr.P.C. should be construed
liberally in such a case.”
10. In this case, it has been
noticed that the action of torture to the
complainant was started by the petitioners in
the matrimonial house of the complainant at
Samastipur and it continued. The complainant
was in hope that the matter would be settled
amicably but she lost her hope for amicable
settlement between herself and the petitioners
at large. The action of the accused husband
gave a death blow to her hope and she was
given a mental cruelty in the year 1994 when
she came to know that her husband eloped with
a married lady. Learned trial court has also
dealt this matter in its judgment in paragraph
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 118 and 9. In paragraph 23 of her cross-
examination, the complainant has stated that
when she came to know that her husband eloped
with Manju Singh, wife of Rabindra Singh, son
of Sipahi Jee, she has taken shelter of the
Court. In this view of the matter, it cannot
be said that the occurrence of torture has
been within the jurisdiction at Samastipur and
no cause of action has arisen at Begusarai
where the complaint case was filed. When the
petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial
home, she took shelter in her mother’s hosue
at Begusarai in which jurisdiction the
complaint case was lodged. Considering the
facts and circumstances, the decisions
referred to above reported in [2009] ACR 715
and [2008] ACR 405 (supra) do not help the
petitioners, rather they are helpful to the
complainant.
11. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that for assailing
the judgment now the third ground cruelty has
been made. He has submitted that there has
been no occurrence of cruelty as defined in
Section 498 A IPC there has been no occurrence
which could lead the complainant to commit
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 12
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health whether mental or
physical of the complainant. In support of his
contention he has referred to a decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Manju Ram
Kalita vs. State of Assam, reported in [2009]
ACR 882.
12. Learned lower appellate Court
has dealt with this mater in paragraph 16 and
18 of its judgment which reads as follows;-
“16. …… I find that
the complainant has named all
the appellants, who had
subjected her to torture for
their demand of money and
scooter. There is specific
overtact alleged against the
appellant nos. 1 to 4. The
learned lower court has rightly
taken a lenient view so far the
in-laws of the complainant are
concerned while awarding
sentence to them.
18. The learned
counsel for the appellants has
also submitted that the
appellant nos. 2 to 6 are
residing separately from the
appellant no. 1. I find that
there is no such evidence on
record. From the different
letters proved in this case, it
appears that all the appellants
are living together at Jitwarpur
Railway Colony in the same
house.”
13. Learned trial court has also
dealt with this matter and has found that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 13
victim- complainant has also stated that the
accused were torturing her and they also asked
to sleep her in the bathroom and used to give
stale food to eat and torture and lastly
immediately before filing of the complaint she
came to know that the husband Krishna Kumar
Sinha has eloped with a married lady and it
gave her mental shock and the cruelty is of
such a nature as is likely to drive a women to
commit suicide. An Indian married woman does
not want that in her life time her husband
should marry to another lady or eloped with
another lady. Certainly this type of cruelty
comes within the definition of Section 498 A
IPC. The word ‘cruelty’ has been dealt with in
paragraph 22 of the judgment reported in
[2009] ACR 882 (supra) which reads as
follows:-
“22. “Cruelty” for
the purpose of Section 498 A IPC
is to be established in the
context of Section 498 A IPC as
it may be a different from other
statutory provisions. It is to
be determined /inferred by
considering the conduct of the
man, weighing the gravity or
seriousness of his acts and to
find out as to whether it is
likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide, etc. It is to be
established that the woman has
been subjected to cruelty
continuously/persistently or at
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 14lest in close proximity of time
of lodging the complaint. Petty
quarrels cannot be terms as
„cruelty‟ to attract the
provisions of Section 498 A IPC.
Causing mental torture to the
extent that it becomes
unbearable may be terms as
cruelty."
14. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that cruelty
has been made to the complainant by the
petitioners and the decision reported in
[2009] ACR 882 (supra) does not help the
petitioners. The petitioners have not been
able to make any ground for interference with
the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court as well as the learned
Appellate Court.
15. Lastly, the learned counsel for
the petitioners has submitted that the main
allegation is against the husband Krishna
Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Cr. Revision No.
354 of 2002 and there is no specific
allegation of overtact against the other
petitioners. Therefore, the other petitioners
may be given the benefit under Section 360
Cr.P.C. The occurrence has also taken place in
the year 1990 and more than 20 years have
passed and the petitioners have been suffering
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011 15
from mental agony.
16. Learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the
complainant is still suffering from mental
agony and the petitioners have ruined her life
and they do not deserve any leniency and their
sentence is not fit to be interfered. They do
not deserve any leniency under Section 360
Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that the
husband of the complaint is leading conjugal
life with another lady, and other petitioners
and the complainant is suffering and leading a
miserable life due to torture made by the
petitioners and she has not still married to
any person.
17. Considering the facts and
circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, I
do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction.
18. In the result, both these
revision applications are dismissed.
Patna High Court (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Dated 30th of August 2011
N.A.F.R/Kanchan