Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21673 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ganesh Singh , S/o Birbahadur Singh. 2. Niraj Singh, S/o Ganesh Singh 3. Dhiraj Singh, son of Ganesh Singh 4. Renu Devi, wife of Ganesh Singh All are R/o Village Pokharan , Road No. 2, Subash Nagar Mali Gali, Front of Baltass Company, P.O. – Vartak Nagar, District – Thane West (Maharastra) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ruchi Singh, W/o Neeraj Singh, R/o village – Pokharan, Road No. 2, Subash Nagar Mali Gali, Front of Baltass Company, P.O. – Vartak Nagar, District – Thane West (Maharastra). At present Address - Usari, P.S. – Mohania, District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7 18-09-2012 Heard Sri Vindhyakeshri Kumar, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Narayan Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2. Four 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 9/10/2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, in Complaint Case No. 105 of 2009. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21673 of 2010 (7) dt.18-09-2012 2 / 8 2 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel has confined his argument to the extent of quashing of the order of cognizance only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned court. To corroborate his submission he has referred to statement made in complaint petition and he submits that in complaint petition not even single word has been stated to show that any part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where case was filed and order of cognizance was passed. In support of his argument that in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction no case can proceed, he has heavily relied on a single bench order of this court reported in 2010(2) BBCJ V-551 (Anshu Devi Vs. The State of Bihar). He submits that in Anshu Devi Case (Supra) this Court has dealt with in detail on the point of territorial jurisdiction of a court and at the same time this court has also dealt with continuing offence. He submits that offence under [STATUTE] may not be treated as a continuing offence. As per learned senior counsel all the cause of action arose in the city of Mumbai, and as such, the learned Magistrate has patently erred in entertaining the complaint petition and passing the impugned order. Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21673 of 2010 (7) dt.18-09-2012 3 / 8 3 submits that in the complaint petition in the first paragraph itself it was categorically stated that at the time of solemnizing marriage demand of Rs. 1,00000/- and a Hero Honda Motorcycle was made, which was not fulfilled and due to non fulfillment of the demand, the complainant had suffered atrocity at the hands of petitioners. Of-course, major portion of the cause of action arose at Mumbai, but, according to learned counsel for the complainant some of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where complaint was filed and as such order of cognizance may not be set aside. In this case, a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the complainant wherein in clear term it has been stated that marriage was solemnized in the village Usari in the district of Kaimur where complaint case was filed. According to learned counsel for the complainant since part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Bhabua, the learned Magistrate was well competent to proceed with the case in view of Section 178(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides this, it was submitted that offence under [STATUTE] is a continuing offence and in support of his argument on this very point he has relied on 2012(2) PLJR 107 (Dinesh Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21673 of 2010 (7) dt.18-09-2012 4 / 8 4 Bihar & Anr.). He submits that in Dinesh Mahto Case (Supra) this court had relied on an Apex Court judgment reported in 2011(2) PLJR 191 (SC) (Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. ). He has further submitted that moreover in the present case order of cognizance has been challenged and in view of Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it can be termed as only an irregularity not amounting to vitiate the case. He has also relied on Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of his argument and submits that if for the time being it is assumed that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Bhabua even then the order of cognizance may not be interfered with since the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that no proceeding shall be quashed in view of Section 460 & 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On aforesaid grounds he has prayed for dismissing the present petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused materials available on record. Of-course, in complaint petition, in specific word, it has not been asserted that marriage was solemnized within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhabua Court but in the counter affidavit it has been stated that marriage was solemnized there. However, while hearing a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21673 of 2010 (7) dt.18-09-2012 5 / 8 5 petition under Section 482 of the Code

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.