Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37617 of 2008 ======================================================= Nandu Hari, son of Sri Sahdeo Hari, resident of village-Ayodhiyaganj, Kurshela, P.S. Kurshela, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mona Devi, wife of Sri Nandu Hari, daughter of Sahdeo Hari, resident of Mohalla-Tilka Manjhi, B.R. Ambedkar Road, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Parties. ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner: M/s. Bhola Prasad and Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, Advocates. For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ----------------- 5 14-02-2012 The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No.1070 of 2004, summoning the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioner under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Mona Devi, filed the Complaint Case No.1070 of 2004, alleging therein that her marriage with the accused-petitioner was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37617 of 2008 (5) dt.14-02-2012 2 / 12 2 performed on 24.4.1999 at her parental house, Tilkamanjhi at Bhagalpur, according to Hindu Customs. At the time of marriage, cash, ornaments and households articles were given to her but in spite of that her father-in-law became annoyed for not providing almirah and he, anyhow, was convinced and Rs.4000/- was given to him for the same. After her Bidai, she came at her sasural village-Ayodhyaganj Kursela from where she went with her husband at Lal Maati Guwahati, where her husband was employed. While she was kept some days properly but thereafter she was being tortured for cash Rs.25000/- and a motorcycle by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. Anyhow, she stayed there but her in- laws started to make conspiracy to oust her from sasural house. It is further alleged by the opposite party no.2 that she sent information to her father regarding the aforesaid demand of dowry and torturing for the same. Thereafter, her father gave cash Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- to her husband and then she remained for some days there peacefully but, thereafter, the accused persons again started making demand of cash and a motorcycle. In the meantime, she conceived pregnancy. When her husband and in-laws came to know about her pregnancy, then she was asked by them to go to her Maika for delivery and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37617 of 2008 (5) dt.14-02-2012 3 / 12 3 they also told her to give information to her father. On receiving aforesaid information, her father sent to her brother for her Bidai and she came to her parental house at Bhagalpur in Bidai but her all personal belongings and ornaments were kept by her husband and mother-in-law. After reaching at her Maika at Bhagalpur, she gave birth to a male child on 27th of August, 2003 but none had come from her sasural house nor any information was received from there in spite of sending the letters by her. It is also alleged by the opposite party no.2 that thereafter her father and brother went to Guwahati on 30.6.2004 and tried to convince her husband and in-laws then they put condition to bring her in Bidai on payment of Rs.25000/- and a motorcycle. Since her father was not in service, so he could not fulfill the demand and she was not taken to her sasural in Bidai by her husband and in- laws and due to that reason, she was suffering mentally and physically at her Maika at Bhagalpur. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on enquiry, summoned the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioner, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37617 of 2008 (5) dt.14-02-2012 4 / 12 4 Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The sole argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that from the complaint petition, it is apparent that the occurrence as alleged took place at Lal Maati, Guwahati, where the petitioner used to reside in connection with his job. As such, the court of Bhagalpur had no jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioner with respect to the alleged occurrence said to have taken place at Lal Maati, Guwahati. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of a Bench of this Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and another {2009(4) PLJR 189}. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 made submission that the offence under [STATUTE] is continuing in nature and, therefore, the court of Bhagalpur, had jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioner as the opposite party no.2 used to reside at her Maika situated in the district of Bhagalpur after the alleged occurrence and suffering mental cruelty due to demand of cash and a motorcycle in dowry by the accused persons including the petitioner. 6. As in the present case, the issue is confined only to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37617 of 2008 (5) dt.14-02-2012 5 / 12 5 territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2, hence, there is no need to go into other factual aspects. Since the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.