Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40999 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sushil Kumar 2. Rajesh Kumar, Both sons of Bageshwari Prasad 3. Kamala Devi wife of Bageshwari Prasad 4. Bageshwari Prasad, son of Late Ram Ratan Prasad, Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 residents of Mohalla- Sonarpatti, Ganj No.1 within P.O. & P.S. Bettiah Sadar, District- West Champaran 5. Sudha Devi wife of Dinesh Prasad 6. Sangita Devi, wife of Ajit Kumar, Both daughters of Bageshwari Prasad, Petitioner no.6 resident of Naznin Chowk, Near Ramlila Maidan, Ganj No.2, P.O. & P.S. Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran, petitioner no.5 resident of Pankaj Market Road, Mohalla- Saraiyaganj, P.S. Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Satyendra Kumar, son of Late Gorakh Prasad 3. Shalini Devi wife of Sushil Kumar, Both residents of Bagaha Kothi, behind Bagaha Police Station, P.S. Bagaha, District-West Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 5 22-08-2012 Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.3. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10th June,2008 passed in Complaint Case No.595 C of 2004 ( Tr. No.640 of 2010). By the said order, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40999 of 2010 (5) dt.22-08-2012 2 / 3 2 Bagaha has framed charge under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, has argued that the court at Bagaha was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the case. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case may not be tried or proceeded at Bagaha court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the complaint petition, it was disclosed that the offence was committed at Bettiah and not at Bagaha. He further submits that decree of divorce has already been prepared in the year 2009. Learned counsel for Opp.Party no.3, while referring to the averments made in the complaint petition, submits that the fact of the complaint petition categorically discloses that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction at Bagaha court. He has specifically referred to page-3 of the complaint petition, wherein it has been asserted that accused no.1 had telephonically asked the complainant to pay Rs.50, 000/- as dowry. Besides this, there is other fact also in the complaint petition, which discloses the fact that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction at Bagaha court. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40999 of 2010 (5) dt.22-08-2012 3 / 3 3 Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. So far decree of divorce is concerned, it is evident that such event had taken place subsequent to filing of complaint petition as well as subsequent to framing of charge. On this ground, no benefit can be given to the petitioners. So far as question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is evident from the fact enumerated in the complaint petition that part of cause of action arose at Bagaha court. The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction has got no application in the present case in view of section 178 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, offence under Section 498A is continuing offence and, as such, I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.