Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42578 of 2009 ====================================================== Md.Amir Ansari @ Meenu, son of Md. Ilyas Ansari, resident of Village- New Dilya, P.O. & Police Station-Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Tabassum Ara, daughter of Md. Jamaluddin Ansari, resident of Mohalla-Imli Tal, Purani Shahar, P.O & P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ---------------------- 3 28-08-2012 Heard Mr. Nasrul Hoda, learned counsel, who was assisted by Md. Naushadzzoha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradip Narayan Kunwar , learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Smt. ( Dr.) Leelawati Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar in Complaint Case No.259 of 2009 . By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance, has argued that prior to filing of complaint petition, one case for restitution of conjugal right was filed by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42578 of 2009 (3) dt.28-08-2012 2 / 4 2 petitioner, who is the husband of Opp.Party no.2, which had came to an end on compromise. Subsequently, the present complaint case was filed by Opp.Party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar was not having any territorial jurisdiction to pass order of cognizance due to the reason that entire cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction at Dehri-on-Sone in the district of Rohtas and, as such, learned Magistrate in view of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not required to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since order of cognizance has been passed only under [STATUTE] , the allegation made in the complaint petition that prior to ‘Nikah’ demand was made has got no application. He has also argued that there is settled law on the points that in absence of territorial jurisdiction, no court can proceed with the case. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. Dr. Leelawati Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 that offence under [STATUTE] is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42578 of 2009 (3) dt.28-08-2012 3 / 4 3 continuing offence and, as such, since the complainant was ousted from her in-laws house and she is residing at Daudnagar , she has filed complaint case. She further submits that in the complaint petition, there is specific assertion that on the date of ‘Nikah’, accused persons had demanded a Maruti-800 Car, whereas one Boxer Motorcycle was already given as dowry to the husband of Opp.Party no.2. According to learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2, the averments made in the complaint petition itself clarify that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, where complaint petition was filed and order of cognizance has been passed. She further submits that complaint petition categorically discloses commission of offence under [STATUTE] . Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that complaint petition was filed on allegation of commission of offence under [STATUTE] as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, learned Magistrate by the impugned order has passed order of cognizance under [STATUTE] . The assertion made in the complaint petition describes that some cause of action arose at Daudnagar, where the marriage was solemnized. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42578 of 2009 (3) dt.28-08-2012 4 / 4 4 Moreover, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has rightly argued that offence under [STATUTE] is a continuing offence. In view of the fact, as disclosed in the complaint petition, the Court is of the opinion that it is not an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and, as such, it is not a fit case for interference with the order of cognizance. 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.