FIR Registered Sans Territorial Jurisdiction But Chargesheet Can't Be Quashed, Police Should Present It Before Appropriate Court: MP High Court

While quashing the ongoing criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, Madhya Pradesh High Court has instructed the police to present the charge sheet in the appropriate court with territorial jurisdiction.

The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar noted that though the complainant-wife lodged an FIR at Anjad Police Station in Barwani District, no cause of action has arisen at Anjad.

“….it is apparent that the marriage of petitioner No.1(husband)…was solemnized with the respondent No.2 (wife)…on 24.04.2011 at Kukshi, District Dhar, and due to matrimonial discord, and the other incident which the complainant has referred to, regarding assault on her by her husband, which took place outside the Barwani Court premises, whereas, the FIR has been lodged at Police Station Anjad, District Barwani…”, the bench sitting at Indore pointed out.

Background

The husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law were arraigned for offences under Sections 98A, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the marriage took place at Kukshi and the alleged incident of assault on the complainant also took place elsewhere, and hence the current criminal proceedings before J.F.M.C Anjad couldn't be sustained. The only connection the case has with Anjad is that this is the place where the petitioner resides currently, Advocate Akshat Pahadia argued.

The counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2, Advocate Paras Chandra Vaya, submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and five witnesses have already been examined. According to the counsel, the complainant-wife is also a resident of Anjad which gives her the right to file FIR at the concerned police station.

Other Observations

The court objected to the act of Anjad Station House Officer who proceeded after the registration of F.I.R and investigated the case. The single-judge bench also opined that J.M.F.C Anjad should have been more cautious before entertaining the case. However, the court, by relying on Delhi High Court's decision in Malkiat Singh v. State (2005), clarified that the chargesheet itself cannot be quashed. The trial court has been directed to hand over the chargesheet dated 24.10.2022 back to SHO, Anjad, who in turn, should present it before the court with territorial jurisdiction, the court further noted.

In Malkiat Singh, Delhi High Court had held that the place where the complainant suffered cruelty, including her matrimonial home, will be the place where the jurisdiction will lie. When a magistrate finds out that it does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, the police report should be returned so that the officer can comply with Section 170 CrPC, it was held by the Delhi High Court back then.

Similarly, an excerpt from the apex court decision in Amarendu Jyoti v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 12 SCC 362 was also reproduced by Justice Abhyankar. In this case, it was observed that the offence of cruelty is not a 'continuing one' as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of Cr. P.C and mental cruelty inflicted on a person won't 'continue unabated'.

Government Advocate Amay Bajaj appeared for the respondent state.

Case Title: Rajendra Panwar & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 14583 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 36

Click Here To Read/ Download Order