Dismissed

Beetbala Maltiyar v. Dinesh Kumar Sinha

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2012CRMP/45/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of an order reversing the taking of cognizance. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction lies in the court where the property was entrusted and that mere convenience of the petitioner does not determine jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; no relief granted.

Beetbala Maltiyar Vs Dinesh Kumar Sinha — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR
Cr.M.P.NO. Lf^ /2008
PETITIONER : Beetbala Maltiyar, W/o. Dinesh
COMPLAINANT Kumar Sinha, D/o. S.K. Maltiyar,
Aged about 32 years, R/o. Jail Para,
^i^ Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
^.^•-r^
District Surguja (CG)
'f^-:^r
^.;^^g
VERSUS
RESPONDENT Dinesh Kumar Sinha, S/o. Late
ACCUSED Sachchidanand Sinha, Aged about 36
R/o. Ward No. 18,
years,
Manendragarh^ Tahsil Manendragarh,
District Korea (CG)

¶3

PETITION UNDER SECTION 4$2 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Misc. Petition No.45 of 2008

¶6

BeetbalaMaltiyar

¶7

Versus -

¶8

Dinesh Kumar Sinha

¶9

¶10

Post for pronouncement of order on 3rord of April, 2012

¶11

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶12

'c/V

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶14

Criminal Misc. Petition No.45 of 2008

¶15

PETITIONER/: Beetbala Maltiyar

(Complainant)

Versus

RESPONDENT/:

Dinesh Kumar Sinha

(Accused)

{Petition^{under Section482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure1973}}

¶22

(Reserved for order on 21-3-2012)

¶23

Present:

¶24

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe with Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, counsel for the

¶25

petitioner.

¶26

None present for the respondent. No representation is made.

¶27

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

¶28

ORDER

¶29

rd (3raofApril,2012)

¶30

By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 14-1-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No.83/2007, reversing the order dated 19-6-2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.115/2007, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406 ofthe IPC againstthe respondent and has issued process.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned; copy of the order dated 19-6-2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur; copy of the complaint; copies of statements recorded during the course of enquiry under Chapter 15 of the CrPC and copies of other documents.

¶32

As per copy of the complaint, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 8-6-1998. Stridhan were given to the petitioner at her parental house situate at Ambikapur. She took her stridhan to her matrimonial house situate at Manendragarh and she entrusted stridhan to the respondent at Manendragarh. She never brought her stridhan to her parental house. Consent decree of divorce

Page 2 of 3

^^€ia&^%^ /'^ \ If i

^%.^9S^

Cr.M.P.No.45/2008

was granted and the petitioner is residing in her parental house situate at Ambikapur. The respondent has failed to return her stridhan even after service of notice. Therefore, complaint for misappropriation of stridhan was filed by the petitioner before the Courf situate at Ambikapur. After preliminary enquiry, the Chief Judicial Magistratehas taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and has issued notice to the respondent, same was challenged before the Sessions Judge and vide order impugned the Sessions Judge has reversed the order taking cognizance on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶38

•c"

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that stridhan has been entrusted to the respondent at Manendragarh. At present, after divorce, the petitioner is residing at Ambikapur. Therefore, the respondent was under obligation to return stridhan to the petitioner at Ambikapur. The petitioner has also served notice to the respondent for return of stridhan at Ambikapur, but the respondent has failed to return stridhan. Therefore, cause of action for filing complaint also arose at Ambikapur and the Court situate within the territorial jurisdiction of Ambikapur is also competent to try such offence in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the CrPC. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Lalita Mor & Anr., 1995 (3) Crimes VIII 326, in which the Allahabad High Court has held that Court at place where property is required to be returned will also have territorial jurisdiction to try offence.

¶40

As per allegation made in the complaint and statement of the complainanVpetitioner, stridhan was given to her at Ambikapur at the time of marriage, she brought the same to her matrimonial house at Manendragarh, she entrusted stridhan to the respondent at Manendragarh and at present she was residing at Ambikapur. She demanded her stridhan by serving notice issued by her from Ambikapur. As per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the CrPC, in case of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court withln whose local jurisdiction the offencewas committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for. Sub-section (4)of Section 181 of the CrPC reads as follows: -

^6 Page 3 of 3

^:^^.^^

Cr.M.P.No.45/2008

"(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."

¶45

As per allegation made in the complaint, the property was entrusted to the respondent at Manendragarh, there was no any agreement between the parties to show that the property was required to be returned or accounted for at Ambikpaur. At present, the respondent is not residing at Ambikapur that too along with the alleged stridhan. There was no agreement or contract or the respondent has not received the part of stridhan at Ambikapur. Therefore, entire cause of action for filing complaint arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situate at Manendragarh not at Ambikapur. Only on the ground that the petitioner is residing at Ambikapur, the respondent is not required to return the property at Ambikapur.

¶46

In the matter of Dinesh Kumar (supra), on the basis of inconvenience and difficulty of wife, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court situate at the place where wife is residing will also have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Convenience or inconvenience of the party would not be the deciding factor for territorial jurisdiction of the Court, territorial jurisdiction is required to be determined on the basis legal parameters.

¶47

Consequently, by reversing the order taking cognizance on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the revisional Court has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of the CrPC. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the complaint has been dismissed on the ground of competency of trial, not on the ground that the offence has not been committed. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to redress her grievances available under the law. -—^

¶48

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶49

Soma

Beetbala Maltiyar v. Dinesh Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beetbala Maltiyar v. Dinesh Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rita Sharma Vs Devesh Das

M/S Alok Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

M/S Alok Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Ravikant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gunjuram Mourya Vs Smt.Ratani Bai

Sudarshan Sangari and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh