Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49967 of 2008 1. Brajesh Pandey @ Brijesh Pandey, son of Jatashankar Pandey. 2. Jata Shankar Pandey, son of Ramchandra Pandey. 3. Harsh Narayan Pandey, son of Ramchandra Pandey. 4. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithilesh. 5. Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay Pandey, both are son of Jata Shankar Pandey. 6. Smt. Gaytri Devi, wife of Jata Shankar Pandey. 7. Smt. Devi, wife of Harsh Narayan Pandey. All are resident of Village-Chhathiyaon, P.S. Patherwa, Disrtrict-Kushi Nagar (U.P.). ………………………………………………...Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Kanti Devi, wife of Brajesh Pandey, daughter of Kailash Pandey, resident of village-Chhathiyaon, P.S. Pataherwa, District-Kushi Nagar (U.P.), at present residing at village-Neuri, P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.III, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jeetendra Prasad, Advocate. ------------------------------- O R D E R 9. 17.1.2012. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No.C-2538 of 2 2007/Tr. No.2619 of 2008, summoning the accused- petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] against them. 2. In brief, the case is that the complainant- opposite party no.2, Kanti Devi, filed the complaint petition on 12.12.2007, numbered as Complaint Case No.C-2538 of 2007 with the allegation that her marriage was performed with the accused-petitioner no.1, Brajesh Pandey alias Brijesh Pandey on 25.6.2002 according to Hindu Customs and after her second marriage (Gauna) in the same year she went to her sasural. She lived there about one year properly but later on, all the accused persons under conspiracy started abusing her and on protest by her all the accused used to assault and torture her. She, anyhow, lived at her sasural about 1 ½ years, thereafter, she went to her Maika in Bidai with her father. In spite of passing over the 1 ½ years none turned up to know her condition from her sasural then her father and other relatives put pressure and held panchayati. Thereafter, on giving Rs.15,000/- by his father, she was taken in Bidai to her sasural by the accused 3 persons. It has also been alleged that although she was suffering from some disease but her mother-in-law, Smt. Gaytri Devi, (petitioner no.6), father-in-law, Jata Shankar Pandey (petitioner no.2) and husband, Brajesh Pandey alias Brijesh Pandey (petitioner no.1) did not provide proper treatment to her and on being asked for treatment by her the accused-petitioners used to assault her giving threatening to remove from the sasural house. Anyhow, she spent time of about 1 ½ years. In the month of June, 2005, the opposite party no.2 had fallen ill seriously, then she stopped to do the domestic work. On the day of Makar Sakranti, all the accused-petitioners brutally assaulted her and asked to her that unless the motorcycle and colour T.V. would not be given by her father in dowry they would not keep her and, thereafter, all the accused by assaulting her ousted from sasural house snatching her ornaments and clothes worth Rs.30,000/-, which were given to her by her father. Thereafter, anyhow, she reached to her Maika and narrated the incidents to family members. After 1 ½ years, the father of the opposite party no.2 alongwith his villagers and relatives went to her sasural and held Panchayti, where all the accused persons assured to take the opposite party no.2 4 in Bidai on 4.12.2007 but none turned up to take her in Bidai. Again on 10.12.2007, the father and brother, Rajesh Mishra, of the opposite party no.2 went to her sasural and made query on which all the accused persons became annoyed and asked that unless Rs.50,000/- would be given in cash, the Bidai of the opposite party no.2 would not be performed and they would perform the re-marriage of her husband, Brajesh Pandey alias Brijesh Pandey (petitioner no.1) at any other place. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, summoned the accused petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] through the impugned order dated 23.9.2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that from the complaint petition itself, it is clear that all the incident, as alleged, took place at the sasural village-Chhathiyaon, P.S. Patherwa, District-Kushi Nagar (U.P.) of the complainant-opposite 5 party no.2. As such, the court of Gopalganj had no jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioners due to lack of territorial jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no.3, Harsh Narayan Pandey and petitioner no.7, Smt. Devi, are uncle and aunt of the petitioner no.1, Brajesh Pandey alias Brijesh Pandey, the husband of the opposite party no.2, Kanti Devi, and they are separate since last 15 years and residing at village- Taruanua, P.S. Patherwa, P.O. Laxmipur, District-Kushi Nagar (U.P.) and they have no concern with the family affairs of the petitioner no.1 but they have also been made accused by the opposite party no.2 only with a view to harass. Similarly, petitioner no.4, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithilesh and petitioner no.5, Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay Pandey, are younger brother of the petitioner no.1, Brajesh Pandey @ Brijesh Pandey, and they are student and they have also been made accused by the opposite party no.2 with oblique

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.