Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17272 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Zohra Khatoon , Wife of Md. Sabir Hussain, 2. Md. Rizwan Alam alias Md. Rizwan, Son of Late Md. Munir Alam Both residents of Village and P.O. – Garha, P.S. – Pupari, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Nasrin Rizwi alias Homa, Daughter of Syed Sohail Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla – Sherpur, P.S. – Biharsharif, District – Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 15-02-2012 Heard Mr. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1/ State and Sri Avinash Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order which was passed long back on 24.03.2004 under [STATUTE] in Complaint Case No. 1025C of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17272 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 2 / 8 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the extent of challenging the order of cognizance on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Short fact of the case is that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1025C of 2003 arraying ten persons as accused including the petitioner no. 1, who is mother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 – own brother of father-in-law of the complainant. In the complaint petition it was disclosed that her marriage was solemnized on 07.04.1999 at Biharsharif with accused no. 1 in the complaint petition i.e. son of the petitioner no. 1, and thereafter, she went to her in-laws house. Subsequently, it was alleged that the accused persons started pressurizing the complainant for bringing Rs. 50,000/- ,so that, the same amount may be deposited in the ‘Fixed Deposit Scheme’ for the purposes of marriage of the daughter born out of wed lock of the complainant with the son of the petitioner no. 1. For such demand, she was pressurized and tortured. The complainant was compelled to convey the demand to her parents who were residing at Biharsharif, Nalanda. This fact has been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the complaint petition. Subsequently, demand of motor cycle was also made, which too Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17272 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 3 / 8 3 was conveyed through the complainant to the parents of the complainant residing at Biharsharif. The complainant has further disclosed that due to non-fulfillment of the demand, once, while she was sleeping in night, kerosene oil was sprinkled on her and she was put on fire. It was disclosed that for evidence burnt ‘saree’ was also available. Lastly, due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, after torture, she was ousted from her in-laws house. After filing the complaint, the complainant examined witnesses in support of the complaint petition, and subsequently, after conducting enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, by the impugned order had taken cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] , which is under challenge before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of cognizance submits that the learned Magistrate, Biharsharif at Nalanda was not having any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. It was argued that the in-laws’ house of the complainant was situated in the district of Sitamarhi and also all the alleged occurrence had taken place in the district of Sitamarhi. It was submitted that since no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court at Biharsharif, the learned Magistrate, Biharsharif was not having any jurisdiction to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17272 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 4 / 8 4 entertain the complaint petition or pass order of cognizance. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2004(4) CRI. L.J. 4180 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.). Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to paragraph no. 11 of the said judgment. For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph no. 11 of Y. Abraham Ajith Case (Supra), which is as follows:- 11. “A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997 (5) SCC 30). There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under [STATUTE] . On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier the husband of the complainant went to the place where complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 15-4-1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied.” On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17272 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 5 / 8 5 Sri Avinash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 / complainant has

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.