Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28465 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar Sinha, son of Shashi Bhusan Prasad Sinha. 2. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, son of Shashi Bhusan Prasad Sinha. 3. Rashmi Sinha, wife of Sudhir Kumar Sinha. All resident of Abulas Lane, Machhua Toli, P.S.-Kadam Kuan, District- Patna, presently residing at 325, DDA Flats, Pocket-1, Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi. …. …. Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shweta Dhar, Daughter of Satish Narayan Dhar, wife of Sunil Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla-Kanti Factory Road, South of Punjab National Bank, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, P.s.-Agam Kuan, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 4 24-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional P.P. Petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 20.06.2009 passed by SDJM, Patna City in connection with Complaint Case No.1045/2008 whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . and 4 of D.P. Act. Shorn of unnecessary detail, O.P. No.2, Shweta Dhar had alleged that soon after her marriage when she joined company of her husband at Dwarka, Delhi she became confronted with the fact that there happens to be lacherous relationship in between her husband and Rasmi Sinha one of his Bhabhi and in the aforesaid background, she face different kinds of mental as well as physical Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28465 of 2010 (4) dt.24-07-2012 2 torturous events which had extended up to Patna. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that Patna court has no jurisdiction because of the fact that whatever allegation has been attributed, even in worst case that was committed at Dwarka and only to extend the jurisdiction of Patna, the same has been incorporated afterwards in the complaint and that shows that it happens to be a work of patching just to attract, jurisdiction of Patna so, submitted that in the aforesaid background the order of cognizance is bad. At the other hand, the learned lawyer for the O.P. No.2 submitted that roaming enquiry is not at all permissible at the present stage. Whatever narration happens to be in the complaint petition that was made before filing of the complaint which was considered by the court concerned while exercising its jurisdiction and then and then only being satisfied on that very score entertained the complaint, proceeded with inquiry and then summoned the petitioners. Apart from this has also drew attention towards the contents attracting the Patna jurisdiction and for that he referred para-21 when the father and mother of complainant had gone to the place of father and mother of accused who happens to be one of the accused within original jurisdiction of Patna as well as also disclosed the event including para-26 and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28465 of 2010 (4) dt.24-07-2012 3 para-30 of the complaint petition. Ordinarily, as per Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. the court, in whose jurisdiction offence has been committed, has been identified to proceed with the trial with certain exception which has been enumerated subsequently. One of the section happens to be 179 which says “when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued”. From the narration of the complaint, it is evident that major portion of event with regard to torture and cruelty inflicted over the complaint was made at Dwarka which led the complainant to leave the place there from and by such criminal act she has been deprived of to avail company of her husband (one of the accused) as well as to enjoy the usufruct of her marital life. Apart from the same torturous events have further ensued within the jurisdiction of Patna resultant of horrific act which pin cersed her at Dwarka. Apart from this, as per decision reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal, page 3848 at para-5, it has been held: “In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the Trial Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28465 of 2010 (4) dt.24-07-2012 4 court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a Court has jurisdiction to try / entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. hence, instead of rushing to the higher’ Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the trial Court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial Court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case”. Apart from this, the order of cognizance on the part of lacking of jurisdiction has not been found to be illegal rather it happens to be mere a irregularity which does not vitiated the proceeding and that happens to be the mandate of law as coming out under Section 460 of the Cr.P.c. The Act further prescribes that no finding should be annulled on this score unless and until the accused, shows that there happens to be failure of justice in accordance with Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid background as well as taking into account the guideline so laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the prayer made by the petitioner on this score appears to be misconceived and consequent thereupon, instant petition is dismissed. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, 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.