Anagha v. P G Manu & Others (OP(Crl.) No. 36 of 2021)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: Investigation can be continued by the 2nd respondent (Mannuthy Police Station) himself; OPCRL disposed accordingly.
Final Disposition: OP (Criminal) disposed; investigation to be continued by the 2nd respondent (Mannuthy Police Station).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anagha

Respondents

P G Manu
Inspector of Police, Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur City
Station House Officer, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
Sivaprasad
Sivaram Nair
Laila Kumara

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M.R. Sasith
• Smt. Hemalatha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. G. Manu
• Smt. Neelanjana
• Smt. Sajitha M J

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Original Petition (Criminal) challenges the Respondents’ decision to shift the investigation of a complaint under Section 498A IPC from Mannuthy Police Station to Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner Anagha, wife of the 4th respondent, alleges cruelty by the 4th–6th respondents (husband and in-laws) and had registered Crime No. 724/2020 with Mannuthy Police. The cruelty is alleged to have taken place mainly in Thiruvananthapuram, with some acts at Thrissur where she sought shelter after leaving the matrimonial home. While the initial investigation was conducted by the Mannuthy police, respondents decided to transfer the remaining investigation to the Museum Police Station due to the locus of acts. The petitioner objected, and the matter was argued before the court. The Bench relied on Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh to consider the jurisdictional question under Cr.P.C. and IPC, noting that jurisdiction can depend on the factual situation and place of shelter. The court ultimately held that, under Cr.P.C. Section 156, police officers may investigate cognizable offences within their local jurisdiction, and in these circumstances, the investigation could continue by the 2nd respondent (Mannuthy Police) itself. The O.P. is disposed with directions accordingly, allowing the investigation to proceed with the 2nd respondent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 156 Cr.P.C.Chapter XIII Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the investigation, which began at Mannuthy, should not be transferred to Museum Police Station given the mixed facts (major cruelty in Thiruvananthapuram and some acts at Thrissur). Relying on Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner argues that jurisdiction is fact-specific and may lie where shelter is sought. The 2nd respondent’s jurisdiction to continue investigations under Cr.P.C. 156 is invoked to maintain continuity and convenience for witnesses and the petitioner.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the locus of the offences and the majority of acts occurred in Thiruvananthapuram, justifying transfer to Museum Police Station. They rely on Section 156 Cr.P.C. and the Rupali Devi decision to support the jurisdiction of the police station where the primary acts occurred, contending that the transfer is appropriate to address the practicalities of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others	Laws (SC) 2019 4 41	Positive	Cited to indicate that jurisdiction for offences under Section 498A can depend on factual circumstances and place of shelter, influencing the court’s assessment of where the investigation should primarily proceed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **OP(CRL.) NO. 36 OF 2021** ## **CRIME NO. 625/2020 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER:** ANAGHA AGED 23 YEARS D/O. VENUGOPALAN, VILAKKATHARA HOUSE, MANNUTHI, MADAKKATHARA PO, THRISSUR. BY ADV RAJIT 1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, CITYTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE-695010. 2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY-680651. 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695104. 4 SIVAPRASAD, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR @ BABY, TC 15/1210, SIVAKRIPA, KLRA 48 A, DPI, THAIKKAD PO, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 5 SIVARAMAN NAIR, TC 15/1210, SIVAKRIPA, KLRA 48 A, DPI, THAIKKAD PO, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 6 LAILA KUMARA, TC 15/1210, SIVAKRIPA, KLRA 48 A, DPI, THAIKKAD PO, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SASITH SMT.M.HEMALATHA ## **RESPONDENTS:** SRI P G MANU -SR PP THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 ..2.. ## **JUDGMENT** This Original Petition has been filed challenging the decision of the respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the complaint filed by the petitioner before the 2[nd] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent for investigation. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the 4[th] respondent. The 5[th] and 6[th] respondents are the parents of the 4[th] respondent. The petitioner filed a complaint before the 2[nd] respondent against respondents 4 to 6 alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent registered Ext.P1 crime as Crime No. 724 of 2020 of Mannuthy police station. Admittedly, the matrimonial home is at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents 4 to 6 are also residing at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is a native of Thrissur. Ext.P1 is the FI Statement given by the petitioner. A reading of O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** FIS would show that a major portion of the matrimonial cruelty was taken place at Thiruvananthapuram. However, some portion of the cruelty also took place at Thrissur when she along with the 4[th] respondent resided at her parental home. The initial part of the investigation was conducted by the 2[nd] respondent. However, thereafter, since the major part of the alleged cruelty took place within the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram, they have decided to transfer the further investigation to the Museum police station, Thiruvananthapuram. Even though, the petitioner objected the same and filed a representation (Ext.P2) to the 1[st] respondent, respondents 1 to 3 took the stand that the remaining part of the investigation has to be conducted by the Museum police station. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Neelanjana, the learned counsel for the 4[th] O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** respondent, Smt. Sajitha M J, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and also Sri. P. G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. As stated already, the petitioner is a native of Thrissur and respondents 4 to 6 are natives of Thiruvananthapuram. The marriage was taken place on 10.09.2007 at Thiruvananthapuram. After the marriage, admittedly the petitioner along with the respondents 4 to 6 resided at Thiruvananthapuram. A perusal of Ext. P1 would show that the alleged matrimonial cruelty was inflicted by the respondents 4 to 6 on the petitioner mainly at Thiruvananthapuram. However, it is also alleged that after the petitioner took shelter at her parental home at Thrissur, the 4[th] respondent came there and continued his act of cruelty. Thus, even going by the allegation, some part of the alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Mannuthi police station as well. O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in **Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others** [Laws (SC) 2019 4 41]. There, the precise question posed before the Supreme Court was that“whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitutes cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members?”. The Supreme Court answered the question and held in paragraph 16 that the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, depend on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the IPC. Going by Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. any officer in charge of a police O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Here also, the definite case of the petitioner is that, she was driven out of her matrimonial home at Thiruvananthapuram and forced to take shelter at her parental home at Thrissur and thereafter also, the 4[th] respondent came there and continued his acts of cruelty. In these circumstances, going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, the Court at Thrissur is also having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. the Mannuthi police has also jurisdiction to conduct the investigation, since the Court at Thrissur is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner and her one and a half-year-old child are staying with the jurisdiction of the 2[nd] respondent. So, it will be difficult for her to go over to O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the 3[rd] respondent, police to co-operate with the investigation. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the investigation can be continued by the 2[nd] respondent himself. Ordered accordingly. OP (Crl) is disposed of as above. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** RMV/10/06/2022 ..8.. ## O.P. (Crl) No. 36 OF 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 36/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.724/2020 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.7.2020. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.7.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.320/TDR/C7/2020 DATED 10.8.2020 ALONG WITH HAND WRITTEN COPY. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.625/2020 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION.