Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10147 of 2006 =========================================================== Against the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in Complaint Case No.684(C) of 2004. =========================================================== 1. Md. Ahsan, son of Md. Israfil. 2. Md. Ekram, son of Md. Israfil. 3. Md. Israfil, son of Late Karamat. 4. Md. Mumtaz, son of Md. Israfil. 5. Md. Rehan, son of Md. Israfil. 6. Bibi Nuresa Khatoon, wife of Md. Israfil. 7. Bibi Guria, wife of Md. Ekram. 8. Bibi Lado, wife of Md. Mumtaz. 9. Bibi Rani Khatoon, daughter of Md. Israfil. All resident of Agarpur, P.S. Lodhipur (Goradih), District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bibi Sanjida Khatoon, wife of Md. Ahsan and daughter of Sk. Manir. Resident of village-Baliyas, P.S. Dhuraiya, District-Banka. .... .... Opposite Parties. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s. Sadaquat Hussain, Senior Advocate and Chandra Mauli Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. M. Haque, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date: 10 -05-2012 ------------- The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in Complaint Case No.684(C) of 2004, summoning the accused-petitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10147 of 2006 dt.10-05-2012 2 / 10 2 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Bibi Sanjida Khatoon, filed the Complaint Case No.684(C) of 2004 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, against the petitioners alleging therein that her marriage was performed with the petitioner no.1, Md. Ahsan, according to Muslim customs five years back and she went to her Sasural and started to lead her conjugal life. While she lived properly for about two years but, thereafter, all the accused- petitioners started to torture her through various modes for demand of colour television and cash of Rs.20,000/-. While she made protest saying that her parents are no more and brother is poor but in spite of that she was being tortured through various modes by the accused- petitioners and several times she was removed from her Sasural house. A Panchayti was also held but the accused-petitioners were adamant on the demand as made by them. It has also been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that before one month, all the accused-petitioners causing assault removed her from the Sasural house saying to come again with the money and at that time, all the petitioners also snatched her clothes and ornaments and, presently, she is residing in village- Baliyas at the house of her brother. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint case by the opposite party no.2, Bibi Sanjida Khatoon, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10147 of 2006 dt.10-05-2012 3 / 10 3 Magistrate, Banka, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act through the impugned order dated 13.9.2005, which is impugned in the present application.. 4. The sole argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the complaint petition, it is apparent that the entire occurrence, as alleged, took place in village-Agarpur, P.S. Lodhipur (Goradih), District-Bhagalpur, the Sasural house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 but the opposite party no.2 filed the Complaint Case No.684(C) of 2004 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka. As such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another {(2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 100}. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the offence under [STATUTE] is continuing in nature and, therefore, the court of District- Banka, had jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioners as the opposite party no.2, after removal from her Sasural house situated in the District of Bhagalpur, started to reside at the residence of her brother situated in the district of Banka. 5. As in the present case, the issue is confined only to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10147 of 2006 dt.10-05-2012 4 / 10 4 territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant-opposite party no.2, hence, there is no need to go into other factual aspects. Since the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses, as examined in course of inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the case under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the accused-petitioners, it is desirable to refer to the provision of [STATUTE] relating to cruelty at the hands of the husband or relatives of the husband of a women and also Sections 177-179 of Chapter-XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. [STATUTE] is read as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonm

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.