IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4851 of 2009 1. UPENDRA SINGH SON OF SRI KANT SINGH. 2. RAJENDRA SINGH SON OF SRI KANT SINGH. 3. SRI KANT SINGH SON OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH. 4. GAYATRI DEVI WIFE OF SRI KANT SINGH. 5. LILAVATI DEVI WIFE OF RAM PYARE SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUDWAL, POST OFFICE KAINAL, POLICE STATION JAHANAGANJ DISTRICT AZAMGANRH, UTTAR PRADESH. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2.SMT. SUMAN DEVI WIFE OF SRI UPENDRA SINCH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUDWAL, POST OFFICE, KAINAL POLICE STATION JAHANAGANJ DISTRICT AZAMGARH, UTTAR PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O SRI RAJENDRA SINGH OF VILLAGE JAGDISHPUR POST OFFICE RAJAPATTI KOTHI, POLICE STATION BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ, BIHAR. ----------- 3. 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This Miscellaneous. petition for quashing the First Information Report of Baikunthpur P.S.Case No. 42 of 2008, for offence under sections 498(A), 120(B), 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under section ¾ of the Dowry prohibition Act. The prosecution as alleged that marriage of the petitioner Upendra Singh solemnized with complainant in 2000. The further allegation is that there was demand of motorcycle, freeze, color T.V. and Rs. 100000/- and subjecting cruelty for non fulfilment of demand and petitioner Upendra 2 Singh has illicit physical relation with one Lilavati Devi. However, complaint petition was withdrawn and complainant went to Sasural but again was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand. In the meantime, the complainant became pregnant then her husband and her in- laws assaulted her and snatched her belongings and accused person took her to village Katalpur nearby Baikunthpur at P.S. Gopalganj District and left her there at Kartalpur a village near her naihar and flee away. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contend and challenge the Criminal proceeding on the ground that the marriage solemnized at Gopalganj but all the allegations about subjecting cruelty and assault is alleged to be at a Dhanbad. Hence, he submits that since none of the occurrence alleged in the jurisdiction of Gopalganj and hence, Gopalganj Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It has further been contended that since with regard to the same occurrence, earlier a complaint was filed which was withdrawn and again complaint filed 3 with regard to the same allegation with an extended period of assault hence, the present proceeding is hit by principle of the double jeopardy as disposal of case on compromise amount to acquittal under section 328 Cr.P.C. and further prosecution for the same offence is not permissible. It has further been contended that after the compromise, he has filed a matrimonial case of judicial Separation on 5.12.2006 and hence, being aggrieved by the matrimonial suit filed by the informant complaint has been filed malafidely with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and has placed reliance upon decision reported in 1992 Supreme Court Page- 605, 2008(3) PLJR page- 367 and 2010 PLJR. 36. Learned counsel for the complaint/informant however, contends that the allegation made in the complaint petition itself made out the jurisdiction of the Gopalganj Court. It has further been contended that there is allegation that the accused persons assaulted, snatched the belonging and brought the informant victim to village Katarpur under the jurisdiction of 4 Gopalganj. It has further been contended that subsequent complainant after withdrawal of earlier complaint is not barred. The subsequent complaint filed for offence for subjecting cruelty for offence subsequent conduct after compromise cruelty committed subsequently for non fulfilment of demand and no question of malafide or wreaking vengeance but to demand justice. Having regard to the rival contention the question for consideration whether the occurrence took place in the jurisdiction. However, on perusal of the record it appears that a complain petition was filed and the allegation made in complaint make out a cognizable offence and when a cognizable offence is make out the police under section 154(1) Cr.P.C. has a legal mandate to lodge an F.I.R. and investigate the case under section 156 Cr.P.C. And may not embark upon whether information is reliable or not. The part of the occurrence alleged is in the legal jurisdiction of the Gopalganj under the police station. It has been alleged, in the complaint petition on the basis of F.I.R. 5 lodged, that the victim was subjected to cruelty snatched away her property and was taken to village Kartarpur under the Police station within the District of Gopalganj and left there and hence, part of occurrence did take place in the police station under Gopalganj. However, having regard to the fact that the subsequent complaint is with regard to an occurrence even for a period subsequent to the period of the withdrawal of the case on the compromise. With allegation of subjecting of cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand and hence is not barred by principle of double jeopardy. The contention that the condition 5 and 7 as decided in Bhajan Lal’s case reported in 1992 S.C. 604 (State of Hariyana and Ors. and Bhajan Lal and others) is applicable is also without a basis. However, neither the condition 5 nor condition 7 as enshrined Bhajanlal case is applicable as the allegation is demand of dowry subjecting cruelty regarding husband can neither be said to mala fide nor absurd nor can be said for wreaking vengeance particularly when their 6 case is being investigated by police and no milafide alleged against the police. Merely because a matrimonial case filed by husband for the compromise is no ground that prosecution is malafide or to wreak vengeance. However, when the case F.I.R. is at the stage of investigation the question of mala fide not relevant when allegation makes out an offence. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition hence, the petition is dismissed. Devendra/ ( Gopal Prasad, J.)