IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44093 of 2007 MANISH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF KRANTI KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SANHOLI, P.O. & P.S. KHAGARIA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURJ SINGH, SON OF DAUN SINGH 3. BRIJ SINGH SON OF DAUN SINGH 4. CHANDRAMA SINGH SON OF DAUN SINGH 5. SITA DEVI WIFE OF CHANDRAMA SINGH 6. AMRITI DEVI WIFE OF SURAJ SINGH 7. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF BRIJ SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GHATAHA, TOLA PATASIA, P.S. MOHUDDINAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 8. RANDHIR SINGH.SON OF NITYANAND SINGH ….OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 04. 16.02.2010 Heard both sides. The petitioner who is complainant of the case, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 12th July,2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Khagaria, on the criminal revision application preferred by the accused(s) of the said case. On the strength of enquiry made pursuant to the complaint, the learned trial court has taken cognizance under diverse sections of the Penal Code against the accused persons (opp.parties herein). The accused(s) (opp. parties herein) assailed the aforesaid order in the said revision application (Cr. Revision No.89/05). The learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials on record, has recorded a finding that going by the allegations and the materials on record no case of criminal conspiracy is made out and consequently held that the occurrence in its totality has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Samastipur court, therefore, the complainant may file/lodge a complaint in the court at Samastipur which alone - 2 - had the territorial jurisdiction. As per the complaint, there is specific allegation of conspiracy between the co-accused(s), as a result where of the victim was made to go to a place in the district of Samastipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kunti Devi Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (1) PLJR 616 in order to highlight the submission that even if some part or no part of the occurrence has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the order taking cognizance and issuing processes against the accused(s) would not be bad and/or fatal. Different provisions contained in Criminal Procedure Code declare that lack of territorial jurisdiction in such a situation is not fatal. The prosecution on these grounds cannot be quashed or interfered with. That apart, having regard to the materials on record, I am not convinced with the opinion/finding of the learned revisional court that the allegations do not constitute an offence punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. The order dated 12th July, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Khagaria is set aside and quashed. Hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )