Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29730 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Pramod Malakar. 2. Niranjan Malakar. Both sons of Bhola Malakar. 3. Sonia Devi, wife of Bhola Malakar. 4. Bhola Malakar, son of Late Lahsan Malakar. 5. Kiran Devi, wife of Arbind Malakar, daughter of Bhola Malakar. All residents of village-Kumhari, P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Nilu Devi, wife of Pramod Malakar, resident of village-Kumhari, P.S. Kaduwa, District-Katihar, At present village-Tirahut Bitta, P.S. Araria, District-Araria. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ------------ 7 11-05-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 12.1.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.C-2620 of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, summoning the accused-petitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . 2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that the opposite party no.2, Nilu Devi, filed the Complaint Case No.C-2620 of 2007 against the petitioners and one Dilip Malakar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29730 of 2008 (7) dt.11-05-2012 2 / 12 2 alleging therein that her marriage was performed with the petitioner no.1, Pramod Malakar, in the year 2001 according to Hindu customs. At the time of her marriage, her father had given the clothes, ornaments, furniture, house utensils etc. to her and clothes, chain, watch, television, bicycle etc. worth of Rs.35- 40 thousand to her husband. Just before two days of her marriage, her father-in-law, Bhola Malakar, petitioner no.4, made demand of cash of Rs.25,000/- as Barat expenses. Her father, finding no way, took the loan of Rs.11,000/- and handed over the same to him as Barat expenses. After marriage, the opposite party no.2 went to her Sasural, where she was kept properly for some days but, thereafter, she was being tortured through various modes for demand of cash of Rs.25,000/- by the accused persons. Her mother-in-law, Sonia Devi, petitioner no.3 and Nanad, Kiran Devi, petitioner no.5, who was residing permanently at her Maika, used to torture and assault her brutally and on intervention of the neighbours, all the accused persons used to say them that she is suffering from the ailment of epilepsy. After the marriage, whenever the opposite party no.2 came to her Maika, her husband, Pramod Malakar, petitioner no.1, used to come for her Bidai and gave pressure on her father to give cash of Rs.25,000/-. Her husband, Pramod Malakar, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29730 of 2008 (7) dt.11-05-2012 3 / 12 3 petitioner no.1, was labourer at Delhi-Punjab and whenever he made his visit at his village home, on the instigation of the other family members, he used to assault her and the petitioner nos.3 and 4, namely, Sonia Devi and Bhola Malakar, the mother-in- law and father-in-law, used to put pressure on him to perform remarriage, whereas her dewar, Niranjan Malakar, the petitioner no.2, had an evil eye on her and on making complaint by her, she was being brutally assaulted by the accused persons. On 28.8.2007, on the occasion of the festival of Raksha Bandhan, when her brother, Manoj Kumar Malakar, reached at her Sasural then her husband, Pramod Malakar, petitioner no.1, also made demand of cash of Rs.25,000/- and asked him to take her sister and he will perform his remarriage in case of non fulfillment of demand. While her brother made request showing inability to fulfill the demand of cash of Rs.25,000/- but the other family members of her Sasural house were adamant on the demand and brutally assaulted her brother and driven out her from Sasural house snatching her personal belongings. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 came to her Maika alongwith his brother and narrated all the incidents to her family members and the villagers. While the father of the opposite party no.2 alongwith the witnesses went to her Sasural for Panchayati but the accused Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29730 of 2008 (7) dt.11-05-2012 4 / 12 4 persons were adamant on the demand and humiliated them. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, Nilu Devi, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] through the impugned order dated 12.1.2008, which is impugned in the present application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made sole submission that it would appear from the complaint petition that the entire occurrence, as alleged, took place in the Sasural house of the opposite party no.2, Nilu Devi, situated in district of Katihar but the opposite party no.2, Nilu Devi, filed the complaint case in the district of Araria, where her Maika is situated. As such, the impugned order, summoning the petitioners by the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, is without jurisdiction and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another {(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100}. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the offence under Section 498-A of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29730 of 2008 (7) dt.11-05-2012 5 / 12 5 Indian Penal Code is continuing in nature and, therefore, the court of Araria, had jurisdiction to summon

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.