SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shantabai Dhondiram Rathod And … vs Savita W/O. Anand Rathod And Anr on 4 September, 2018

(Judgment) (1) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Application No. 03377 of 2017

District : Ahmednagar

1. Shantabai Dhondiram Rathod,
Age : 60 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. A/11, Adarsha Park
Co-operative Housing Society,
Barrage Road, Badlapur (West),
Thane – 421 503.
.. Applicants.
2. Reshma Nitin Naik,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. A/11, Adarsha Park
Co-operative Housing Society,
Barrage Road, Badlapur (West),
Thane – 421 503.

versus

1. Savita w/o. Anand Rathod,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Room No.14,
Building No.10B,
Plot No.5-1,
Nagri Niwara Parishad
Colony,
Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai. .. Respondents.

2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through in-charge
Police Officer,
Taluka Police Station,
Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.

………..
(Judgment) (2) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate, for the
applicants.

Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate, for respondent
no.01.

Mr. K.D. Munde, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondent no.02.

………..

With

Criminal Application No. 00850 of 2018

District : Ahmednagar

Anand s/o. Dhondiram Rathod,
Age : 35 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. A/11, Adarsh Park .. Applicant.
Co-operative Housing Society,
Barrage road, Badlapur (West),
Dist. Thane – 421 503.

versus

1. Savita w/o. Anand Rathod,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Room No.14,
Building No.10B,
Plot No.5-1,
Nagri Niwara Parishad
Colony, .. Respondents.
Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai.

2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its In-charge Officer,
Nagar Taluka Police Station,
Taluka Dist. Ahmednagar.

………..
(Judgment) (3) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate, for the
applicant.

Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate, for respondent
no.01.

Mr. K.D. Munde, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondent no.02.

………..

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Date of reserving
the judgment : 31st July 2018

Date of pronouncing
the judgment : 04th September 2018.

JUDGMENT :

01. Both these applications have been filed by
the original accused persons under Section 407 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of
Regular Criminal Case No. 270 of 2016, from the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar, to the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate (F.C.), Ulhasnagar, District Thane.

02. Applicants in Criminal Application No. 3377
of 2017 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of
respondent no.01, whereas applicant in Criminal
Application No. 0850 of 2018 is the husband of
respondent no.01. Respondent no.01 – informant
lodged first information report on 26.02.2016 with
(Judgment) (4) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

Nagar Taluka Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was
contended by her, that her husband is serving as a
Clerk with High Court of Mumbai. He resides with his
mother and sister at 11A, Adarsh Park, Barrage Road,
Badlapur West, Taluka Ambarnath, District Thane. Her
parents reside at Khandke, Taluka District
Ahmednagar. She got married on 28.12.2013 at
Khopoli, Taluka District Raigad. Her father had
given 5,00,000/- rupees as dowry and domestic
articles as well as furniture at the time of
marriage. She was treated properly for about two
months by the accused persons. But thereafter, all
of them started saying that they want to purchase
electronic articles and, therefore, she should bring
amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents. She told
them, that her father had taken loan for the
marriage. It is not yet repaid and, therefore, he
has no money. She refused to bring amount from her
parents. On that count, all the accused persons used
to abuse and her husband used to assault her. She
was kept starved. Thus, they have mentally and
physically harassed her. All of them stated in May
2014, that she should go to her parent’s house and
bring amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to purchase electronic
items and thereby they drove her away from the
matrimonial house. It was told to her, that she
should not return without money. She went to her
(Judgment) (5) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

parent’s house, told the said fact to the parents as
well as brother and other relatives. She stayed for
about 15 days with her parents and then all of her
relatives took her to her matrimonial house. It was
told to the accused persons, that the amount will be
given till Dasera. But the said demand could not be
fulfilled and, therefore, accused persons continued
the harassment. She was assaulted, abused and her
ornaments were taken out by the accused persons at
about 08.00 p.m. on 17.02.2015 and she was driven out
of the house. She called her father, who took her to
his house at Khandke and since then, she is residing
at her parental house. Thereafter, on 04.07.2015,
she was taken to her matrimonial house but she was
not allowed. Therefore, she again came back to her
parent’s house. Thereafter, she lodged report on
26.02.2016.

03. Applicants in both the applications contend
that taking into consideration the contents of the
FIR, the police authorities at Ahmednagar ought to
have sent the FIR for investigation at the
appropriate place. However, investigation was
completed only on the basis of statements of
relatives of respondent no.01 and charge-sheet is
filed. The place of trial should be where the
offence had taken place and, therefore, they have
prayed for transfer of the case from the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar,
(Judgment) (6) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

District Ahmednagar, to the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate (F.C.), Ulhasnagar, District Thane.

04. Heard learned Advocate Shri A.G. Ambetkar
for the applicants. Heard learned Advocate Shri D.R.
Jayabhar for respondent no.01. So also, heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri K.D. Munde
for respondent no.02 – State of Maharashtra.

05. Since the charge-sheet has been filed after
due investigation, perused the charge-sheet. In
order to cut short, I would like to say that all the
learned Advocates have made submissions in support of
their contentions. Learned Advocate for respondent
no.01 has submitted that since the FIR was lodged at
Ahmednagar and the investigation has been carried
out, learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar,
has jurisdiction to try and entertain the offence.

06. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, deals with ‘jurisdiction of the
criminal courts in inquiries and trials’. Section
177 of the Cr.P.C. provides that “Every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction is was committed.” We are required to take into
consideration the contents of the FIR in which
allegations of offence committed by the accused
persons have been made. The contents of FIR clearly
disclose that respondent no.01 intended to say that
(Judgment) (7) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

she was harassed and ill-treated at her matrimonial
home. Admittedly, her matrimonial home is 11A,
Adarsh Park, Barrage Road, Badlapur West, Taluka
Ambarnath, District Thane. The entire FIR does not
show that any of the act of the harassment or ill-
treatment had taken place at Khandke, Taluka
District Ahmednagar. No doubt, after the alleged
driving out of the informant out of the house, she is
residing there, but that cannot be termed as
consequence of the offence.

07. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent
no.01 tried to take help of Sections 178 and 179 of
the Cr.P.C., especially he tried to rely on Section
178(b) and (d). Section 178(b) provides, that “where
an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, then
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of
such local areas.” Similarly, Section 178(d) provides,
that “where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, then it
may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such
local areas.” It is to be noted that the contents of the
FIR or even statements of the witnesses would
disclose that any of the acts were committed partly
in the village where father of the respondent no.01
is residing. Therefore, there is no question of case
coming under the provisions of Section 178 of the
Cr.P.C. Section 179 provides, that “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
(Judgment) (8) Cri. Appln. No. 03377 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 00850 of 2018

within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such
consequence has ensued.” Residence of respondent no.01 with
her parents at Khandke cannot be termed as
consequence ensued as contemplated under Section 179
of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the Court at Ahmednagar has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the said case.
Resultantly, the applications are required to be
allowed.

08. Hence, the following order :-

(a) The applications are allowed.

(b) Regular Criminal Case No. 270 of 2016, pending
before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, is hereby
transferred to the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate (F.C.), Ulhasnagar, District Thane, for
trial and disposal according to law.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi )
JUDGE

………..

puranik / CRIAPPLN3377.17etc

Digitally signed
by Bhagwan
Bhagwan Govindrao
Govindrao Puranik
Date:
Puranik 2018.09.04
14:39:16 +0530

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation