Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33626 of 2010 (6) 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33626 of 2010 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr .... .... Petitioners Versus State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate For the opposite party no.2 Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 6 14 -08-2012 1. This petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 11.9.2004 passed by learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case no. 718C/2004 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ordered to issue summons against the petitioners and other co-accused. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Sarika Devi filed the above stated complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa against the petitioners and others alleging therein, inter-alia, that her marriage was solemnized with accused Yougesh Kumar Srivastava on 21.5.1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals and after that she gave birth to two children but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in- laws on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs 50,000/- and on 5.5.1998, she was assaulted and confined in a room by her in-laws and they also stopped providing any meal to her and furthermore, on 10.2.2000 they tried to burn her but she, any how, eluded from the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33626 of 2010 (6) 2 2 clutches of her in-laws and saved her life and later on, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa after taking cognizance, transferred the case record to the court of learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa for enquiry and trial and after that learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa having conducted an enquiry found prima facie case under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other accused vide impugned order dated 11.9.2004 which is under challenge before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is elder brother-in-law whereas petitioner no.2 is elder sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and, as a matter of fact, they reside separately from the husband of opposite party no.2 since the year 2000 and they have no concern with the affairs either of opposite party no.2 or her husband which is evident from perusal of annexure 2 to this petition. It is further contended by him that according to the case of opposite party no.2, entire occurrence took place at Kaimur district but she filed complaint petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa who had got no jurisdiction to proceed with the case and, therefore, enquiry conducted by learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he referred several decisions such as Bhura Ram & ors vs State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2008(3) PLJR SC page 367, Suresh Das Harijan vs State of Bihar & another reported in 2007 (3) PLJR page 269, Md Kalim and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2009 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33626 of 2010 (6) 3 3 (1) PLJR page 111, Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & another vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2012 (1) PLJR page 138, Prannath Gupta & another vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2007 (4) PLJR page 193, Vijay Kumar Roy vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2008 (2) PLJR page 110, Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2012 (2) PLJR page 444, Dinesh Mahto vs State of Bihar and others reported in 2012 (2) PLJR page 107, Shiv Shankar Prasad vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2010 (3) PLJR page 42, Y. Abraham Ajith & ors vs. Inspector of Police, Chenni & another reported in Supreme Court Cases (2004) 8 SCC 100, Sunita Kumari Kashyup vs State of Bihar and others reported in 2011 (2) SC page 191, Ansu Devi vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2010 (4) PLJR page 306 and Babloo Kumar & ors vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2011 (4) PLJR page 620. 5. The gist of almost all the above stated decisions is that the court in whose jurisdiction cause of action arose would take cognizance and proceed with the case. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, entire occurrence is said to have taken place at matrimonial home of opposite party no.2 and no part of the occurrence took place at her parental home and, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa as well as learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa had got no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that almost all the above stated questions had already Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33626 of 2010 (6) 4 4 been decided by another bench of this court in Cr. Misc. no.37255/2006. It is also pointed out by him that one co-accused Babuni Devi challenged the same impugned order in Cr. Misc. no.37255/2006 but the above stated criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed by another bench of this court vide order dated 20.11.2006 holding that almost all the above stated points are subject matter of due consideration in the trial court and, therefore, petitioners have no right to re-agitate the above stated points before this court because the order dated 20.11.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. no.37255/2006 has already attained its finality. 8. Having heard the above state

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.