IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5443 of 2010 Smt. Reshma Yasmin, D/O Nazir Ahmad Khan, Resident of Pathantoli, P.S. Town, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Zaki A Ahmad Khan, son of Md. Rafique Khan, resident of village Islampur, Dhaka, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran. .... Opp. Parties. ----------- 02- 16.02.2010 Heard Mr. Prabhakar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 13.11.2009, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Cr. Rev. No.34 of 2007/29 of 2008 (Zaki Ahmad Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and another), which, in its turn, had been preferred against the order dated 2.2.2007, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad, in GR No.750/06, Tr. No.2167/06, arising out of Aurangabad (Town) P.S. Case No.146 of 2006. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal revision application at the instance of the present petitioner’s husband and has quashed the prosecution started against him under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the present 2 petitioner is married to opposite party no.2 herein. Sometime after the marriage, relationship between them became sour leading to the first information report at the instance of the present petitioner. It is alleged that after the marriage, she has gone to her Sasural at Dhaka in the district of East Champaran, where she was being ill-treated by opposite party no.2 (husband), and other family members, for demands of dowry etc. Cognizance was taken against opposite party no.2 and other relations. Four co-accused persons, being closed relatives of opposite party no.2 against whom cognizance was taken and were summoned to stand their trial, preferred Cr. Misc. No.10911 of 2007 (Akhtari Khatoon & others Vs. The State of Bihar and another), which was allowed by this Court by order dated 24.6.2009 (Annexure-2), whereby the prosecution against them was quashed on the ground that prosecution at Aurangabad suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction. This was followed by Cr.Revision No.34 of 2007/29 of 2008 (Zaki Ahmad Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and another), which has been allowed by the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that no part of the cause of action having taken place in the Sessions Division of Aurangabad, the order of cognizance is bad in law. 3. It appears to us that the allegations alleged against opposite party no.2 herein had allegedly taken place in her Sasural at Dhaka in the 3 district of East Champaran. It further appears that some kind of Panchayati had taken place at Aurangabad and it is on this score that the petitioner asserts that the court at Aurangabad has had the territorial jurisdiction. It is difficult to accept this contention. Panchayati is no part of the cause of action of the alleged offence. No provision of any penal enactment in this country provides that Panchayati to bring about settlement like the present one would amount to an offence. Therefore, I agree with the impugned order that no part of the cause of action took place at Aurangabad. The second difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that four co-accused persons in the same trial approached this Court for quashing of prosecution on just the same ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction which has been allowed. The same has attained finality. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/