The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that a police station where a complainant takes shelter after being driven out of her matrimonial home possesses territorial jurisdiction to register an FIR for dowry-related cruelty, even if the alleged acts occurred elsewhere. This clarification reinforces the legal recognition of dowry harassment as a continuing offence, with critical implications for investigation protocols across India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Ashish Dubey and his father Mukut Bihari Dubey, challenged the registration of FIR Crime No. 4/2026 at Police Station Takhatpur, Bilaspur. The complainant, Alka Dubey, alleged sustained mental, physical, and financial harassment by her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law for dowry demands between June 2025 and January 2026. She claimed she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, and took refuge at her parental residence in Takhatpur, where she filed the complaint.
Procedural History
- 04.06.2025: Marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2
- 18.08.2025: Complainant allegedly abandoned at parental home in Takhatpur
- 02.01.2026: FIR registered at Police Station Takhatpur under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(2), and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking transfer of FIR to Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to transfer the investigation from Police Station Takhatpur to Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and alleged fabrication of allegations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Police Station Takhatpur had territorial jurisdiction to register an FIR for dowry cruelty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, when the alleged acts occurred in Bilaspur but the complainant subsequently resided in Takhatpur.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. N.K. Chatterjee argued that the alleged acts of cruelty occurred exclusively at the matrimonial home in Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, and therefore only Police Station Civil Lines had jurisdiction. He contended that the delay in filing the FIR - nearly seven months - raised doubts about the veracity of the complaint. He further asserted that respondents No. 4 and 5, who reside outside Bilaspur, were falsely impleaded, and that the complainant’s family had criminal antecedents.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate, countered that the consequences of the alleged cruelty - emotional trauma, abandonment, and forced residence - materialized at Takhatpur, where the complainant sought refuge. He emphasized that dowry harassment is a continuing offence, and jurisdiction arises wherever the effects of the offence are felt, not merely where the initial acts occurred.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of dowry-related cruelty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court. It held that cruelty under Section 3(5) BNS is not a single-point offence but a continuing course of conduct, the effects of which may extend beyond the place of initial occurrence.
"The Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after being driven out would also have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint."
The Court cited Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar to affirm that when part of the cause of action arises at the complainant’s post-abuse residence, jurisdiction vests in that location. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that jurisdiction is confined to the matrimonial home, noting that such a narrow interpretation would defeat the protective intent of the law.
The Court further observed that allegations of delay, falsity, or malafide intent are questions of fact to be determined during trial, not in writ jurisdiction. Absent clear evidence of abuse of process or mala fide investigation, the High Court cannot interfere with police jurisdictional decisions.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that Police Station Takhatpur had valid territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR, as the consequences of the alleged cruelty materialized there. The investigation may proceed without transfer.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Extends Beyond the Scene of Initial Abuse
- Practitioners must now recognize that dowry cruelty under BNS 2023 creates jurisdiction wherever the complainant is forced to reside after abandonment
- FIRs cannot be quashed merely because the initial acts occurred in a different police station
- Legal teams should prepare for jurisdictional challenges in cases involving interstate or inter-district marital disputes
Delay in FIR Filing Is Not Fatal to Jurisdiction
- A delayed FIR does not automatically invalidate jurisdiction or render allegations false
- Courts will not entertain writ petitions to halt investigations based on disputed facts
- Defence counsel must focus on cross-examination and evidentiary gaps at trial, not jurisdictional technicalities
Non-Resident Accused Can Be Validly Impleaded
- Individuals residing outside the jurisdiction of the registering police station may still be named in the FIR if their conduct forms part of the continuing offence
- Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the offence, not the domicile of the accused
- Lawyers must assess whether the accused’s actions contributed to the complainant’s forced relocation before challenging inclusion
