Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6624 of 2009 ===================================================== Mati Azam, son of Sami Azam, resident of Mohalla-Kabirpur, P.S. Nath Nagar, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Ibrar Khan, son of Late Tajamul Khan, resident of West Ajimganj Momin Tola, P.S. Kharagpur, District-Munger. 3. Asfa Khanum @ Seemu, daughter of Md. Ibrar Khan, resident of Ajimganj Mamin Tola, P.S. Kharagpur, District-Munger. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. Abhay Kumar Singh & Bharat Sharma, Advocates. For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari and Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Advocates. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER -------------- 5 18-05-2012 This Criminal Misc. Application is for quashing the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No.376(C) of 2003 by which the petition for discharge as well as the objection on the point of territorial jurisdiction were rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant- opposite party no.2, Md. Ibrar Khan, filed the complaint petition in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, against the husband and in-laws of his daughter, Asfa Khanum alias Seemu. The opposite party no.2 alleged in his complaint petition that his daughter, the opposite party no.3, Asfa Khanum alias Seemu, was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6624 of 2009 (5) dt.18-05-2012 2 / 6 2 married to Md. Rafi Azam, son of Md. Sami Azam, resident of Mohalla-Kabirpur, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. The marriage of his daughter was performed on 10.6.2001 at his residence situated in West Ajimganj, P.S. Kharagrpur, District-Munger. The opposite party no.2 further alleged that after the marriage his daughter went to her matrimonial house but her in-laws started hurling abusive language and showing bad gesture. They said that the bride did not bring the colour television and refrigerator and unless the demand is met the bride would not be allowed to go to her Maika. The opposite party no.2 got information through telephone as well as letters. The opposite party no.2 showed his inability but the husband and in-laws of his daughter used to torture her. The opposite party no.2 gave the motorcycle and cash of Rs.50,000/- to the in-laws of his daughter to please them. It is also alleged by the opposite party no.2 that his daughter conceived but her husband and in-laws subjected her to all sorts of physical and mental and forcibly gave medicine to her causing miscarriage. His daughter was treated in Bhagalpur in Siddharth Memorial Hospital and he spent Rs.10,000/- for better treatment but even then the accused persons continued to torture his daughter and did not allow him to bring his daughter. 3. On such complaint petition being filed by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6624 of 2009 (5) dt.18-05-2012 3 / 6 3 opposite party no.2 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, the same was sent to Kharagpur Police Station for investigation but the police reported that the occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the District-Bhagalpur and returned the complaint petition. Thereafter, the complaint petition was registered as Complaint Case No.376(C) of 2003. After inquiry, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger found prima facie the case under [STATUTE] and ordered to issue summon to the accused persons on 14.7.2003. The accused persons appeared and the witnesses were examined before charge. Thereafter, the accused persons filed a petition for discharge and also raised objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Both the petitions were rejected vide order dated 16.12009, which is impugned in the present application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the court has got no territorial jurisdiction as the entire occurrence are alleged to have taken place at Mohalla-Kabirpur, P.S. Nath Nagar, District-Bhagalpur. At the first instance, the police of Kharagrpur Police Station returned the complaint petition making note of the fact that the occurrence took Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6624 of 2009 (5) dt.18-05-2012 4 / 6 4 place in the district-Bhagalpur. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no cogent evidence against the accused persons to frame the charge and put the accused persons on trial. It has also been submitted that the victim-bride was not even examined before charge. 5. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to reproduce [STATUTE] , which is read as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her 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. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 6. From the aforesaid provision of Section 498-A of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6624 of 2009 (5) dt.18-05-2012 5 / 6 5 Indian Penal Code, it is evident that to constitute the offe

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.