IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24001 of 2007 1. Suman Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Prasad 2. Banti Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Prasad 3. Kamla Devi Wife of Chandeshwar Prasad All residents of Village-Jamaldichak, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna ------- ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bihari Lal Rai Son of Late Shiv Nandan Rai 3. Pushpa Devi wife of Bihari Lal Rai Both of Village-Jitwarpur Nijamat, P.S. Mufassil , District- Samastipur. ------- ------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Satish Kumar , Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P.nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj, Advocate ________ O R D E R Three of the accused of Samastipur Munfassil P.S.Case No.649 of 2006, arising out of Complaint Case No.1337 of 2006, have prayed for the quashing of the entire proceedings thereof including the order dated 25.1.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued against all the accused persons including the petitioners. One Bihari Lal Rai, the complainant, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging - 2 - commission of offences under Sections 406,420,120B , 504 , 379 I.P.C. as also Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same on being transferred to the Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the aforesaid Samastipur (Mufassil ) P.S.Case no. 649 of 2006 came to be registered. According to the complainant, the marriage of his daughter, Puja , was arranged to be solemnized with accused no.3 , Sunil Kumar, who at the relevant time was employed in the Railways as an Assistant Cashier and his co-worker was accused no.1, Ganesh Sharma . It is alleged that on 13.2.2005 they came to see Puja and having approved her they agreed to solemnize the marriage of Sunil Kumar with Puja and as per negotiation with accused no.1, Rs.5 lacs towards marriage expenses and gifts was demanded apart from further amount towards the expenses at the time of marriage. It is said that the aforesaid Rs.5 lacs was demanded for purchase of gold, Car, refrigerator, computer etc. and following negotiations on 16.4.2005, the complainant along with wife Pushpa , his two sons and brother went to the house of accused no.1 and in presence of the other accused, Rs.2 lacs was handed over to him who having counted the cash handed it to accused no.3 for safe keeping and date of marriage was arranged for 17.6.2005. It is further alleged that on 27.5.2005, accused no.1 informed the complainant that he should come with the balance amount to Muzaffarpur on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of accused no.11 and, accordingly, a sum of Rs.3, 07,000/- was handed over to accused no.1 by the complainant in presence of his wife, two sons and witnesses, Pradip Yadav, Naresh Rai and - 3 - Mahendra Rai as also Ganesh Sharma, his wife and three sons and other accused persons. After finalization of the marriage, the complainant made arrangements for the marriage, printed the Invitation Cards and distributed the same. Other activities associated with pre-marriage rituals were also complied with and on 11.6.2005 the complainant along his brother and sons went to the house of accused no.1 to present the Invitation Card as also rice as per customs. It is alleged that accused no.1 having accepted the rice immediately made a further demand of Rs.12 lacs and a Maruti ZEN Car and it was said that unless this demand was fulfilled , the marriage would not take place nor would be rice be distributed. Efforts to reason with the accused persons had not satisfactory impression upon them and the complainant and his party returned home and put a halt to the preparations. It is further alleged that thereafter the prospective bridegroom ,Sunil Kumar( accused no.3),kept talking to Puja over telephone on several days and reminded her of the demands made, audio cassette and tapes whereof were available . It is also said that accused no.1 and others also talked to Puja and with her family members wherein reminders were made of the demands. It is further alleged that under inducement of marriage and false assurances in the name of marriage, accused persons have taken Rs.5 ,07,000/- in cash , Rs.26,000/- by way of clothes and golden ring , shoes etc and Rs.10,000/- towards stitching charges and eventually on 22.9.2006 they finally refused to solemnize the marriage. - 4 - It is further alleged that as the complainant and his family members had been cheated by the accused persons and had taken substantial amount in the name of the marriage, the wife of the complainant filed a case in the court which was sent for enquiry and at the instance of some well-wishers and relatives, the accused persons agreed to return the money received, provided the case was withdrawn and the wife in good faith and in the hope of receiving back the money withdrew the case but as the amount was not returned , the complainant accompanied his wife , sons , brother and mother went to accused no.1 at Danapur on 5.11.2006 and requested for return of the money whereat the accused persons got infuriated and locked the complainant and his wife inside the Drawing room and their sons and brother were kept out doors. It is said that accused Chandeshwar Prasad , his wife, Sunil Kumar, Sudhir Kumar and other family members misbehaved and ill-treated the complainant and his wife and Chandeshwar Prasad, Sudhir Kumar and Ganesh Sharma assaulted the complainant with the butt of the rifle and his wife was abused in filthy language . It is also alleged that at the threat of the rifle the complainant was made to sign on a blank sheet of paper and eventually they were set free and on coming out they found their sons and brother standing at a distance. These persons informed that they had been ill-treated. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a Complaint Case no.1061 of 2006 had been preferred by Pushpa Devi ( wife of the said complainant) and by - 5 - order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur that complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and in that case the present complainant had been arrayed in the category of witness no.1 ,but did not appear in support of the said complaint case. It has further been submitted that the period and place of occurrence with regard to the commission of the said offence in both the complaint cases are said to be in between period 16.4.2005 and 27.5.2005 at the residence of the father of the petitioners’ village- Jamaldichak under Danapur Police Station in the district of Patna and in the town of Muzaffarpur where Rs.3, 07,000/- is said to have been handed over. It has also been submitted that the present petitioners have not been named in the earlier complaint and their names have been added in the instant case with malicious motive and to subject them to undergo a prolonged process of harassment along with other accused persons. Finally, the point regarding Samastipur court having no jurisdiction to take cognizance or even to entertain the complaint petition has been taken and even the action of Samastipur Police Station to investigate the case has been challenged and the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Both Opp.Party nos. 2 and 3 , Pushpa Devi and Bihari Lal Rai have appeared and contested the application by filing a counter affidavit . Justifying the Samastipur court having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and the police at Samastipur having no right to investigate into the matter, it is submitted that since finally the - 6 - demand of Rs.5 lacs was made and subsequent demand for purchase of gifts was made at Samastipur. This fact has been supported by the witnesses including the informant, his wife and his sons. It has further been submitted that on 13.3.2005 , the ring ceremony had taken place at Marwari Awas Grih , Frazer Road,Patna , whereat all the accused persons had participated and truth of this fact is available at paragraph no.37 of the case diary which reveals that the Investigating Officer perused the register of Marwari Awas Grih to verify the truthfulness of this fact. Several other points have also been raised including booking of Maruti Alto Car for the bridegroom. It has also been submitted that accused Chandeshwar Prasad had moved the Sessions Court at Samastipur in Cr.Revision no.230 of 2007 challenging the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 14.9.2007. On the aforesaid premise, it has been submitted that it is manifest and apparent that part of the cause of action had arisen with the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Samastipur which finds support from the statements of the witnesses examined by the police, and as such, the instant quashing application, according to the learned counsel for the Opp.Parties was fit to be rejected. From perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that the complainant along with his wife, sons and brother and the negotiator had come to the house of the complainant at village- Jitwarpur Nizamat within Samastipur Mufassil Police Station in the District of Samastipur and after having approved Puja as the bride for - 7 - accused no.3, talks regarding dowry of Rs.5 lacs in the form of marriage expenses and purchase of gifts was made there. In that view of the matter, the court at Samastipur did have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and Samastipur police did have the right to investigate into the matter. I find no apparent illegality in the instant case proceeding in court at Samastipur and there has been no abuse of the process of the court. So far the addition of the names of the present petitioners is concerned, that is a point, which can be raised by the petitioners at the time of framing of charge. In the result, there is not merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 17th October, 2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.