Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16471 of 2010 (4) dt.27-08-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16471 of 2010 ====================================================== Madhvendra Kumar Bharti S/O Prayag Das resident of Village Akbar Nagar, P.S. Akbar Nagar Distt. Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kumari Rajni Shashi W/O Madhvendra Kumar Bharti resident of Village Sukatia Bazar P.S. Gopalpur Distt. Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate For opposite party no.2 :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mrs Puspa Sinha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04/ 27.08.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.6.2009 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia in Complaint case no. 734/2008 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] as well as ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ordered to issue process against the petitioner and others. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that entire occurrence took place at Gujrat State. So, the court of district Naugachia had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 points out that the contents of the complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16471 of 2010 (4) dt.27-08-2012 2 petition disclosed that while opposite party no.2 was at her parental home, petitioner and other accused had given threatening on telephone. It is further contended by him that offence under [STATUTE] is a continuing offence. So, the court of district Naugachia has got jurisdiction to entertain complaint petition as per section 178 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that this quashing petition does not have any merit and must be dismissed on admission stage itself. Accordingly, this quashing petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.