Allowed

Soumya N. v. District Police Chief

Kerala HC16 Sept 2020Crl.MC/3152/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition challenging the transfer of a 498A IPC FIR from Kollam to Malappuram jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that since investigation was complete and jurisdiction was concurrent, the final report was to be transferred back to the court in Kollam to proceed from the previous stage.

What did the court decide?

Final report/charge sheet filed at Ponnani Court to be transferred/transmitted to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, within 10 days.

Soumya N. Vs District Police Chief — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3152 OF 2020(D)

¶6

CRIME NO.24/2020 OF Perumpadappu Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SOUMYA N, AGED 28 YEARS D/O.NUJUMUDHEEN, 69B, AKSHAYA NAGAR, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -691 003 (FROM SMRA-127, ROSE DALE, MULAMKADAKOM, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM).

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.ANJANA.S.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 678 581.

¶13

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013.

¶14

4 AKBAR SHAH, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 32, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY P.O., MARANCHERRY, PONNANI, MALAPURAM, PIN - 678 581.

¶15

5 UMMU, W/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 58, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, MARANCHERRY P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 581.

¶16

6 ASHRAF, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 48, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, MARANCHERRY P.O., PONNANI, MALAPURAM, PIN - 679581.

¶17

7 SHHEERA, W/O.ASHRAF, AGED 30, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, MARANCHERRY P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 581.

¶18

8 ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 52, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, MARANCHERRY P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN -679581.

¶19

9 HAJIRA, W/O.ABDUAL NAZAR, AGED 36, MULLATHEL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY P.O., MARANCHERRY P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 581.

¶20

P.P. SRI.P.RAMESH CHAND

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

==================

¶24

Crl.M.C.No. 3152 of 2020

¶25

==================

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2020

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case

¶29

filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as follows:

¶30

“...... to declare that the transfer of Annexure B FIR No.28/2020 of Kollam West Police Station, Kollam District to Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District re-registering as Annexure C, FIR No.24/ 2020 is illegal and irregular and direct respondents 1 & 2 to transfer back the crime case to Kollam West Police Station for investigation.”

¶31

2. Heard Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner (defacto complainant) and Sri.Ramesh Chand, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 to R-3. Though notices have been duly served on contesting respondents 4 to 9, the said parties have not entered appearance in spite of a previous adjournment.

¶33

The 4^th respondent herein and the petitioner herein are husband and wife. Contesting respondents 5 to 9 are close relatives of R-4 (A-1). The petitioner herein had filed Anx.A private criminal complaint on 6.1.2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, alleging that contesting respondents 4 to 9 have committed offences punishable under Sec.323, 406, 498A, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate had issued directions under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. directing the SHO, Kollam West Police

¶34

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 4 :-

¶35

Station, to register crime and conduct investigation thereon in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which, Anx. B FIR in Crime No. 28/2020 of Kollam West Police Station was registered for offences under Sec. 323, 506, 498A, read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C., in which contesting respondents 4 to 9 herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6. The allegations in Anx. B FIR are to the effect that after the marriage of the petitioner with the 4^th respondent, she has been constantly subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the abovesaid accused persons, etc. and that they demanded more dowry amount and gold ornaments and she has also been physically assaulted by the 4^th respondent, etc. and that her gold ornaments and monies have been misappropriated, etc. The SHO Kollam, West Police Station, had later transferred Anx.B FIR to the Perumpadappu Police Station in Malappuram District on the ground that major incidents alleged in Anx.B FIR, are those which have happened within the territorial limits of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District, which is the matrimonial home of R-4 and the petitioner, after their marriage. Pursuant thereto, Anx. B crime was re-registered as Anx.C FIR in Crime No. 24/2020 of Perumpadappu Police Station,

¶36

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 5 :-

¶37

for the very same offences, as against the very same accused persons. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said transfer of the case from Kollam West Police Station, Kollam District, to Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District. It is common ground that the parental home of the petitioner herein is at Kollam, whereas after her marriage, R-4 and the petitioner have set up their matrimonial home along with the other family members in a place, which is within the territorial limits of Perumpadappu Police Station. The learned counsel fore the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid transfer of the case is illegal and improper and that it is now well settled that in a case relating to allegations involving offences like Sec. 498A of the I.P.C., it is, not only the Police Station within whose limits the matrimonial home is situated, where the major incidents would have occurred, will have the jurisdiction to investigate the case, but also the Police Station within the whose limits, the parental home of the wife is situated, to which place, later she has shifted her residence on account of harassment and cruelty of her husband and his family members.

¶38

The matter in that regard is no longer res integra and the earlier divergence of opinion has been resolved by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the decision in Rupali Devi v. State of

¶39

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 6 :-

¶40

Uttar Pradesh & Ors . [(2019) 5 SCC 384] and therein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that after the wife, who is a victim in an offence as per Sec.498A of the I.P.C., leaves the matrimonial home and comes back to her parental home, her sufferings at the parental home that are directly attributable to the commissions of acts of cruelty by the husband and his family members at the matrimonial home would undoubtedly be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home and such consequences by itself would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home, where she has taken shelter and that the adverse effects on the mental health of the wife in her parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. at her parental home and that the consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home and this kind of offences are contemplated under Sec. 179 Cr.P.C. which would squarely be applicable to the present case. Sec.179 of the Cr.P.C. deals with offence, triable where act is done or consequence ensues, wherein it is stipulated that when an act is an offence by

¶41

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 7 :-

¶42

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 within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Hence, the Apex Court has held that the courts at the place, where the wife takes shelter in her parental home after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of the acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would dependent on the factual situation and such court will have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C.

¶43

The abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in Rupali Devi's case supra has been followed by the Apex Court in the subsequent decisions as in Ruhi v. Anees Ahmad & Ors. [MANU/SC/ 0145/2020 = 2020 (1) ACR 1098. In Ruhi's case supra, the Apex Court dealt with a case, where the complaint/first information statement was given by the appellant therein to the Supdt. of Police Ghaziabad, which was later transferred to the Police Station at Delhi, for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 406 and 34 of the I.P.C. The 1^st respondent therein had approached the Delhi High Court by filing an application for quashment of the FIR registered at the Police

¶44

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 8 :-

¶45

Station concerned in Delhi and the Delhi High Court has refused to quash the FIR. However, the Delhi High Court has taken the view that the place of occurrence as per the FIR was at Meerut and that the appellant therein (wife) had not resided with R-1 therein (husband) at Delhi. Accordingly the Delhi High Court had ordered transfer of the FIR from the Police Station concerned at Delhi to the Police Station concerned at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, which is stated to be the Police Station within whose limits the matrimonial home of the husband and wife was situated. Later, the final report/charge sheet was filed by the Police on receipt of the materials pertaining to the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police and further investigation carried on by the Meerut Police, Uttar Pradesh and the Magistrate court at Meerut had taken cognizance of the offences. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Ruhi's case supra, after placing reliance on the 3- Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Rupali Devi's case supra has held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of the acts cruelty, committed by the husband or his relatives, would also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. Accordingly the Apex Court in Ruhi's case

¶46

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 9 :-

¶47

supra has ordered that the final report/charge sheet filed at Meerut court was ordered to be transmitted to the competent court concerned at Delhi and had accordingly, allowed the said appeal filed by the wife.

¶48

In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek for quashment of the decision for transfer of Anx.B FIR registered at Kollam Police Station, in Kollam District to the Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District, which resulted in re- registration of the said crime as Anx.C at the latter Police Station. Now Sri.Ramesh Chand, learned Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents would submit on the basis of the instructions that as a matter of fact the investigation has been completed by the Perumpadappu Police Station, and final report/charge sheet has also been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani, which is having territorial jurisdiction over Perumpadappu Police Station, on 30.7.2020.

¶49

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the plea of the petitioner could be appropriately allowed taking into account the abovesaid legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions as in Rupali Devi's case supra [(2019)

¶50

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 10 :-

¶51

5 SCC 384] and Ruhi's case supra [2020(1) ACR 1098]. The relief granted by the Apex Court in Ruhi's case supra could also be befittingly considered in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as now, there is no necessity to consider the prayer for quashment of the decision for transfer of the case from Kollam West Police Station to Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram, inasmuch as investigation has been completed. Since both the Police Stations have concurrent jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the investigation conducted by the Perumpadappu Police Station is absolutely illegal or ultra vires. Accordingly, following the directions issued in cases as in Ruhi's case supra, it is ordered that the final report/charge sheet filed pursuant to Anx.C FIR at the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani, will stand transferred and transmitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, who had earlier dealt with the initial crime registered as per Anx.B. The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani, will ensure that the entire records in relation to the said final report/charge sheet filed in Anx.C FIR shall be transferred and transmitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, within 10 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing

¶52

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 11 :-

¶53

so, the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani would also enclose a report therein stating as to the various proceedings in that court and cognizance in that case has been taken or not. After receipt of the transmitted case papers, the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, will commence the proceedings from the stage, which was in vogue at the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani, prior to the abovesaid transfer.

¶54

The Registry will forward certified copies of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani, as well as to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam, at the cost of the petitioner. The learned Prosecutor will also ensure that certified copies of this order are given to both the SHO, Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram, as well as to the SHO, Kollam West Police Station, Kollam District, for necessary information,

¶55

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands disposed of.

¶56

sdk+

¶57

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶58

Crl.M.C.3152/20 - : 12 :-

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.73/2020 OF JFMC-III, KOLLAM.' ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.28/2020OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.24/2020 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

Soumya N. v. District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumya N. v. District Police Chief

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

Sajith Chandrababu, Vs Drishya Dileep

Raveendran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Gopika P.B., Vs the State of Kerala

Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Hemalatha Vs State of Kerala

Sandhyavu a Vs Sreenivasan