ORDER
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Petitioners, who are accused of Criminal Case No. 553/02 pending in the Court of JMFC, Itarsi, for the offences under Section 498A, IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that no part of offence is said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Itarsi and, in fact, the offence is alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhopal.
2. In short, the facts of the case are that complainant Anita Choudhari was married to accused Suresh Raj on 26-11-2000 at Bhopal. After marriage, she resided at Bhopal. According to her, after marriage, when she lived at her husband’s house, her husband and other accused persons started harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty on the ground of inadequacy of dowry. They demanded Rs. 1 lac in cash and a Maruti car. On not meeting the demand, she was subjected to harassment and she was made to leave the house and to go to her parent’s house at Itarsi. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on perusal of the allegations made in the written report lodged by complainant on 29-7-2002 and the statements of Anita Choudhari, her mother Smt. Tara Choudhary and father Manoharlal Choudhari recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), it is apparent that all the acts of demand and cruelty are alleged to have been committed at Bhopal, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bhopal. Though it is said that she had gone to her parents’ house more than once, but there is not even a whisper of allegation that any kind of cruelty was committed towards her when she was at Itarsi. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial of the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Itarsi was without jurisdiction.
3. Learned Dy. Government Advocate, Shri S.K. Kashyap appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the complainant was compelled to leave the in-laws’ house and was made to go to her parents’ house at Itarsi. Since she stayed at Itarsi and suffered mental agony there, the Courts at Itarsi had also jurisdiction.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the law laid down in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., 2004 AIR SCW 4788 and the decision of in Shakuntala v. State of M.P., 2005(3) MPLJ 338.
5. I have heard the Counsel of both the parties at length.
6. Before entering into the factual aspects of the case, it would be apt to refer to the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code, which are as under:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) Where it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one and continuous to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(e) 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.
7. Section 177 of the Code, which is a general provision, provides that ordinarily an offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed whereas under Section 178 of the Code, the offence could be tried in different Courts if it is uncertain as to in which of the several local areas the offence was committed, or that the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where the offence is continuing one and continued to be committed at more than one local area. Under Section 178, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having
jurisdiction over any of such local area. In the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), Apex Court observed :
11. A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by in Sujata Mukerjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 323, IPC. On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier the husband of the complainant went to the place where complainant was residing and had assaulted her. held in that factual background that Clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case, the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 15-4-1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied.
8. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, on examining of the facts of this case, I find that no part of the offence as revealed from the first information report and the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code, appears to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Itarsi. All the acts of demands and harassment amounting to offence are alleged to have taken place at Bhopal. Therefore, the continuance of the trial before the Court of JMFC, Itarsi would be against the mandate of law. On the facts, as discussed above, I hold that it is only the Court of Magistrate at Bhopal which has territorial jurisdiction for the trial of the aforesaid case. Court of JMFC, Itarsi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, it should be sent to the Competent Magistrate at Bhopal for trial.
9. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in such a situation, in appropriate cases can exercise the powers conferred under Section 407 of the Code, which provides :
407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.- (1)
Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court:
(a) **** ***** ***** **** *****
(b) **** ***** ***** **** *****
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may order-
*** *** *** *** *** ***
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii)*** *** *** *** ***
(iv)*** *** *** *** ***
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the Lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative:
Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
***** **** **** **** ****
10. I find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State. On careful reading of the aforementioned provision, I find that if in appropriate cases, it appears to High Court that it would be expedient for the ends of justice, it may on its own initiative transfer a case to any other Court of equal jurisdiction subordinate to its authority.
11. In my opinion, instead of quashing, it would be expedient for the ends of justice that the present case which is pending before the Court of JMFC, Itarsi, in the exercise of power under Section 407 of the Code, be transferred to the Court of equal jurisdiction at Bhopal.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. It is directed that Criminal Case No. 553/02, pending in the Court of JMFC, Itarsi be transferred to the Court of CJM, Bhopal for de-novo trial. However, CJM, Bhopal shall be free to allot the case to any Magistrate of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him. Copy of the order be sent to Court below as also to the Court of CJM, Bhopal.