Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18455 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Pradeep Kumar son of Raj Kumar Duggar, 2. Raj Kumar Duggar son of Late Meghraj Duggar Both resident of Golchha Katra, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.S. & District Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sangita Sahu , W/o Madhukant Sahu, R/o Mohalla - Rambag Chauri, P.S. – Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 19-09-2012 Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2. Two 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 14/7/2009, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 418 of 2009, T.R. No. 2562 of 2009. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18455 of 2010 (5) dt.19-09-2012 2 / 5 2 of cognizance mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate who has passed order of cognizance was not having territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case, and secondly, it has been submitted that order of judicial separation has already been passed by the learned Family Court, Katihar, on 14/3/2011, in Matrimonial Case No. 75 of 2009. It was submitted that in the complaint petition there is nothing to show that any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where complaint was filed and order of cognizance was passed. While referring to statement of complainant recorded on oath during enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this court that even marriage was solemnized at Katihar, which was admitted by the complainant in her statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Annexure - ‘5’ to the supplementary affidavit filed on 12/9/2012. Similarly, he has brought to the notice of this court an order passed by learned Family Court i.e. Annexure - ‘ 4’, to the supplementary affidavit. On aforesaid two grounds he has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance. Learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have supported the order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18455 of 2010 (5) dt.19-09-2012 3 / 5 3 At the very outset, it may be indicated that learned counsel for the petitioners, has admitted that petitioner no. 2 is on bail. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is not on bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that initially petitioner no. 1 was granted anticipatory bail for a period of six months vide Cr. Misc. No. 36929 of 2009 on 16/11/2009. However, the petitioner no. 1 even after expiry of six months had not appeared before the court below. This fact was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners but it was argued that since after the order passed in anticipatory bail petition, this court, in the present case, on 28/1/2011, had already stayed proceeding before the court below the petitioner no. 1 has not appeared. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the complaint petition, of-course, it has been categorically stated that major portion of occurrence had taken place not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Muzaffarpur, but one fact has been indicated that even over telephone the father of the complainant was threatened regarding demand of the dowry, and as such , the court is of the opinion that it is not a case in which no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18455 of 2010 (5) dt.19-09-2012 4 / 5 4 Muzzafarpur. It is a case in which some of the cause of action arose at Muzaffarpur, and as such, in view of Section 178(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure option was open to the complainant to file complaint either at the court at Muzaffarpur or Katihar. On this very ground order of cognizance may not be interferred with. Moreover, Section 460 and 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, makes it clear, that on such irregularity no proceeding shall be set aside. Besides this, the order of cognizance can not be assailed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. This observation is corroborated in view of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 3499 (Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others,). The Apex Court in paragraph no. 12 of its judgment has discussed this issue. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to re-produce here paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment, which is as follows: - “12. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore a fallacious thinking that only a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post cognizance stage and not earlier.” Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18455 of 2010 (5) dt.19-09-2012 5 / 5 5 So far as the second g

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.