Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 4286

Advertisements

Facts of the case:

• The appellant call in question of the legality of the judgement made by the madras high court.
• By exercise of powers under section 482 of code of criminal procedure 1973 was rejected.

• Respondent 2 file complaint on 498 a and 406 of the Indian penal code and section 4 of the dowry prohibition act 1961.
• Magistrate directs the police inspector to investigate and thereafter the charge sheet was filed by the police inspector. But the matter stood thus appellant filled an application under section 482 of the code and hence no jurisdiction taken by magistrate.
•  Section 482 code of criminal procedure: Quashing of FIR
• Section 498 A of Indian penal code: Cruelty
• Section 406 of Indian penal code: Criminal breach of trust
• Section 4 of Dowry prohibition act 1961: Punishment for the demand of dowry
• Section 177 code of criminal procedure: ordinance place of enquiry and trial \
• Section 177-186 of code of criminal procedure: Exceptions to the Halsbury’s law of England
• Section 178 [c] of code of criminal procedure: continuing of the offence.

Issue – whether any part of the course of action arose within the judgement of the concerned court?        While addressing this issue, the court made a statement in which he highlights that according to section 177 of code of criminal procedure, the place where offence was committed.  It is the essence for cause of action for initiated for the proceedings.

Contentions of the petitioner –

• Appellant falls in question with legality of madras high court judgement, Appellant prayer for quashing proceeding by exercise of process under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure.

• Thereafter, the complaint filed of alleging commission of offences 492 A and 406 of the Indian penal code and section 4 of dowry prohibition act, 1961, afterwards magistrate directs the police inspector to investigate and also police inspector filed charge sheet.

• When matter stood appellant failed application under section 482 of code of criminal procedure, alleging concerned magistrate has no jurisdiction, further no part of the course of action taken place, afterwards complaint shift from Nagercoil and shift to Chennai, the courts of Chennai did not have any jurisdiction, complainant filed the petition but no action taken place.

• In support Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer said complaint bare reading show that no part of course of action taken place and thus no entire proceedings taken place.

Contentions of the respondents –

• It is submitted that some of the offences were continuing offence, appellant 1 had been started for proceeding and therefore the cause of action exists.
• Complainant submitted that offences were continuing in terms of under section 178 [c] code of criminal procedure, therefore had jurisdiction.

Judgement-

• The court held that the factual background that clause [c] of section 178 was attracted, but complainant herself leave the house of the husband on 15.04. 1977 and therefore not nay act demand for dowry constituent in the Chennai. Thus 178 [c] was not applied.

• Further, the court said according to the principle with regard to section 177 and exceptions and arose from through the complainant petition, no action taken place in Chennai and thus it is not a continuing offence, that’s why the proceedings are quashed and if the complainant wants, they may return to the respondent or chooses to file in the appropriate court and that appeal is accordingly applied.

Conclusion –

• According to Blackstone, “all crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed.” The word “ordinarily” is a key phrase in Section 177 of the Code. Because the word is used, it is clear that the regulation is general and should be interpreted in light of the Code’s particular provisions.

• This Court considered a similar argument regarding the continuation of the crime in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997 (5) SCC 30). There are allegations regarding suspected offences that would fall under Sections 498A, 506, and 323 of the IPC. On the basis of the relevant facts, it was observed that notwithstanding earlier dowry requests, the complainant’s husband visited her residence and physically abused her.

• While “cause of action” is typically used in civil proceedings, Section 177 of the Code specifies that it is used in criminal cases to refer to the local jurisdiction where the offence was committed. These differences in etymological expression do not significantly alter the position.

• Therefore, the term “cause of action” is not unfamiliar in criminal trials. It is established law that a cause of action consists of a collection of circumstances that warrant pursuing a legal claim for relief in a court of law. In other words, it consists of a collection of facts that, when combined with the relevant legal standards, provide the person that is purportedly impacted the legal ability to sue the other party. There must be some action taken by the latter because no cause of action could potentially accrue or emerge in the absence of such an act.

• The phrase “cause of action” has occasionally been used to communicate the narrow meaning of facts or situations that only serve to support an infringement or a right. It has been used to refer to the entire collection of material facts in a broader and more thorough sense. The term “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in court or before a tribunal; a collection of relevant facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; or a factual circumstance that entitles one person to seek redress from another in court. (From Black’s Legal Dictionary) A “cause of action” is defined as the full set of events that give birth to an enforceable claim; the phrase includes all facts that the plaintiff must prove in order to win a judgement if they are present. The definition of “cause of action” according to “Words and Phrases” is the existence of those circumstances that provide a party legal standing he has the right to legal intervention on his behalf.

written by Nishtha Tandon intern under legal vidhiya

Admin