Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28093 of 2011 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Pandey, S/O Madan Mohan Pandey, R/O Vill. Gigna, P.S. Mohinia, Distt. Kaimur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kajal, D/O Dr. Uday Narayan Upadhaya, R/O Mahavirsthan, Ward No. 5, P.S. Sasaram, Distt. Rohtas .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S.K. Chaubey, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY CAV ORDER 4 13.07.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.4, Sasaram in Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.47 of 2009, Tr. No. 78 of 2010 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for quashing the entire criminal prosecution. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28093 of 2011 (4) dt. 13-07-2012 2 3. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance on the ground that all cause of action has taken place either at Varanasi or at Delhi and no cause of action as it appears from the First Information Report has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sasaram and as such Sasaram Court has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the matter. He has further challenged the subsequent proceeding of the trial also. 4. From the First Information Report it appears that the marriage was solemnized in between prosecutrix and the petitioner on 28.4.2007. In the aforesaid marriage her parents have incurred expenses of Rs.7,00,000/- in payment in cash as well as articles. After the second marriage the prosecutrix went to the house of her husband situated at House No. E/39, Pishachmochan, Kamayani. It has been further alleged that the treatment of her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband was not up to the mark. After 10 days of the second marriage the prosecutrix along with her husband had gone to Delhi and stayed in Bikalp Apartment, C-3, Patparganj, I.,P. Expension, Delhi. It has been further alleged that they have kept whole ornaments including cash of Rs.25,000/- which were given to her at the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28093 of 2011 (4) dt. 13-07-2012 3 time of her Bidai and thereafter they have started demanding Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. It has been further averred that when she refused to accede the demand of money from her parents she was beaten. It has further been alleged that younger brother of Rajesh, namely, Minu alias Amit Pandey, on phone, had asked the prosecutrix to bring the money from her parents otherwise she would face bad consequences. Her father-in-law also used to demand the money. When her mother-in-law went to Delhi she also misbehaved with the prosecutrix including assault and abused her. The elder brother of her husband who is also a veteran criminal used to threaten her for dire consequence. When she conceived a child her husband has given a wrong medicine and also assaulted her which led to miscarriage and she was expelled from her house. Ultimately she started living with her sister in Delhi. When she was badly treated at Delhi her parents brought the prosecutrix to Sasaram. It has been also alleged that Nirmal Narayan Dubey and Rangnath Pandey had tried to settle the dispute but failed. It has been further alleged that her parents went to Delhi and met with her husband where it transpired that petitioner had relationship with another girl and that was the reason for bad treatment with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28093 of 2011 (4) dt. 13-07-2012 4 the prosecutrix. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant has vividly narrated the whole story in the First Information Report from which is appears that admittedly, no cause of action has taken place in the State of Bihar specially within the jurisdiction of court at Sasaram. In support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments: (i) Bhura Ram and ors. Vs. state of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2008(3) P.l.J.R. (SC) 367 (ii) Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, reported in 2004(8) SCC 100 (iii) Baijnath Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(3) P.L.J.R. 1012 He has further submitted that the judgments that have been mentioned hereinabove supports the case of the petitioner as facts of the present case is completely covered the facts mentioned in the aforementioned judgments and he has further submitted that as per plain reading of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) it is completely clear that the Court of Sasaram has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial and made a prayer for quashing the impugned order of cognizance and subsequent proceeding Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28093 of 2011 (4) dt. 13-07-2012 5 also. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has disputed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that from the F.I.R. though it appears that the cause of action has taken place in the State of Uttar Pradesh or in Delhi but ultimate suffering of the prosecutrix continued at Sasaram and as such the consequences of action that has taken place in the State at Varanai and Delhi has been still in receipt by the prosecutrix. It has been further submitted that it is not possible for the prosecutrix to attend the case at Delhi or Varansi in view of

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.