In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has reshaped the legal landscape surrounding Section 498-A complaints, emphasizing the impact on victims over traditional jurisdictional considerations. The ruling states that the courts where a wife seeks refuge after leaving her matrimonial home due to cruelty will now have the authority to entertain complaints under Section 498-A, contingent upon the factual circumstances.
The case, heard by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, stemmed from an SLP challenging the judgment of a Bangalore Sessions Judge who granted extraterritorial bail to the accused husband. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Apex Court seeking a review.
The crux of the matter revolved around whether the ordinary place of inquiry and trial should encompass the location where the complainant-wife resides post-separation. Delving into the interpretation of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court departed from previous judgments, such as State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, which insisted on local jurisdiction based on the occurrence of the offense.
The turning point came with the 2019 case of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., which introduced a fresh perspective. The ruling clarified that even when residing in her parental home due to acts committed in the matrimonial home, adverse effects on the wife’s mental health amounted to cruelty under Section 498-A.
In applying this principle to the current case, the Court highlighted the broader implications of cruelty on mental well-being. The complainant-wife, allegedly facing death threats and harassment, sought refuge in her parental home in Chirawa, Rajasthan. Consequently, the Court deemed Chirawa as the ordinary place of trial, overturning the Sessions Judge’s decision to grant extraterritorial anticipatory bail to the accused husband.
The Court emphasized that the accused should approach the jurisdictional Court in Chirawa, Rajasthan, for anticipatory bail, highlighting the importance of involving the local authorities where the FIR was lodged.
The judgment also touched upon various aspects, signaling a shift in legal perspectives. It clarified that High Courts and Session Courts can grant interim/transit anticipatory bail even when the FIR is registered in another state. Additionally, it outlined conditions for transit anticipatory bail in FIRs registered in other states, emphasizing the need for police to secure transit remand for arrests outside the state to safeguard rights under Article 22.
The case, marked as Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, sets a precedent by prioritizing the well-being of victims and acknowledging the wider impact of cruelty, reshaping how courts approach Section 498-A cases.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
