IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2771 of 2009 1. RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY @ RAKESH KUMAR.JAISWAL. S/O LATE DINESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY 2. VIKASH KUMAR JAISWAL SON OF LATE DINESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY 3. DHARAMSHEELA DEVI W/O LATE DINESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY ALL R/O MOHALLA- HAJIPUR, P.S. & P.O. KHAGARIA, DIST. KHAGARIA. --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRITI JAISWAL W/O RAKESH KUMAR, D/O KAUSHAL KISHORE BHAGAT, R/O MOHALLA NAUGACHIA, WARD NO. 15, NONIA PATTI, P.S. & P.O. NAUGACHIA, DIST-BHAGALPUR. --- OPP.PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr.Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate. For the Opp.Partyno.2. : Mr. Abdul Manan Khan, Advocate. ----------- 06. 29.06.2010 Petitioners, who are accuseds of Naugachia P.S. Case no. 154 of 2006, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 498 A and 406 and 120 B of the Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, seek to quash the F.I.R. itself. Few facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present case may first be indicated. Complainant/informant was married to petitioner no.1 sometimes in the year 2001. Such marriage was solemnized within the territorial jurisdiction of Naugachia in the District of Bhagalpur where the parents of the complaint used to reside. The in-laws of the complainant reside in the District of Khagaria. As she was ill-treated and tortured in her matrimonial home, she returned back to her ‘Naihar’. She lodged a complaint in the Court on 10.04.2006. Learned court below in seisin of the matter by an order dated 13.04.2006 directed for 2 institution of F.I.R. in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently the F.I.R. aforesaid was instituted on 24.04.2006 under diverse Sections referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while questioning the institution of F.I.R., submits that going through the allegations contained in the complaint/F.I.R., it would appear that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the District of Bhagalpur. He, therefore, submits that institution of F.I.R. in the District of Bhagalpur should be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 (complainant/informant), on the other hand, supported the institution of F.I.R. It is submitted that the provision of laws support such action. He draws attention of the Court to the allegations contained in paragraph nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 of the complaint (now treated as an F.I.R.), in order to show that definitely part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhagalpur. He further highlights that remaining part of demand of dowry was made through telecommunication at Naugachia in the District of Bhagalpur. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short ‘The Code’) provides jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Ordinarily every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of the Code itself contemplates varied situations wherein the criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to try and or enquire into the allegation. Section 179 of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure states that when an Act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. It is seen from the F.I.R. that part of the offence was committed in the District of Bhagalpur. Secondly only an F.I.R. has been lodged giving rise to investigation. There is no judicial order passed after enquiry or trial which is required to be considered with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. F.I.R. can be interfered with only when no case is made out even after accepting each and every word alleged therein. This Court is not satisfied that a case for quashment of the F.I.R. is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, states that F.I.R. has already culminated into final form resulting in order taking cognizance. If that be so, then the present application has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)