IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9001 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Babloo Kumar 2. Kundan Kumar, Both Sons of Uday Sah 3. Uday Sah 4. Manju Devi 5. Manoj Sah, All R/o Vill. Beldour, P.S. Beldour, Dist. Khagharia 6. Nutan Devi, W/o Manoj Sah, Both R/o Vill Udakishunganj, P.S. Udakishunganj, District-Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bhupendra Sah late Ganeshi Sah, R/o Vill. & P.S. Jdakishunganj, District-Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Party/s ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH) 4 09-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In short F.I.R. is to the effect that O.P. No. 2 approached petitioners for marriage of his daughter with petitioner no.1. Finding his daughter of their liking, 01.12.2005 was fixed for engagement (chheka). On the due date that was performed also at the house of accused persons (petitioners). Residence of parties is relevant in the case for the purpose of jurisdiction. So, it is made clear that Opposite Party 2 No.2 is resident of District-Madhepura, while petitioners of District-Khagaria. In engagement (chheka), it is said that cloths, utensils, briefcase, ornaments, cash and several other articles were given but one of the demands remained to be fulfilled that was of motorcycle for which Rs. 30,500/- was sent, even then date was not fixed. For the last time, when the date was requested to be fixed that was refused for a further demand of Rs. 50,000/- A single point is raised to quash the order passed for taking cognizance that is jurisdiction of the Court satisfying that every payment including refusal was made at the house of petitioners in the District of Khagaria and F.I.R. is lodged at Madhepura. Cognizance is taken also by Madhepura Court, (S.D.J.M.) which is without jurisdiction. On this point, decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Cr. Appeal No. 904 of 2005 reported in 2004 Cr. Law Journal, 4180 is referred which is clear on the point that if no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of any Court, no cognizance can be taken by that Court (cognizance taking Court). Certainly, in the instant case, every payment is made at the house of petitioners in the District of Khagaria 3 including refusal. So, Court (S.D.J.M.), Madhepura was lacking with the jurisdiction for the cognizance. Accordingly, the quashing application is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhepura in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2005 is hereby quashed. Shailendra Bhushan Prasad/-A.F.R. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)