IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9021 of 2005 NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8 2-Jul-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for of the State. However, none appears on behalf of O. P. no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.9.2003 passed by Sri S. K. Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharsa in complaint case no. 539 (C)/2003 whereby and where under he had taken cognizance of the offence u/ss 406, 420/34 of the Penal Code. The case of the complainant/ O. P. no.2, in short, as put in the petition of complaint is that petitioner no.2, Ruby Singh @ Ruby Devi is Phupheri sister of the complainant and other petitioner is husband of Rubi Singh. The complainant and petitioners agreed to open a pig firm in the name and style of Kasturi Batika Pig Firm at village Paharpur. They, accordingly, entered into an unregistered agreement. Petitioner no.2 Narendra Kumar Singh with the help of his wife constructed a house to keep the pigs. The complainant purchased 12 white Yorkshyar pigs for Rs. 39,000/- and started maintaining them. During the course of time the numbers of pigs increased and when 43 pigs were fully developed then the petitioners/accused wanted to oust the complainant from the business for which the complainant filed informatory petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger and 2 S. D.M., Bakhtiarpur. It is alleged that accused persons sold pigs for Rs. 45, 520/- and out of which the complainant was paid only Rs. 5, 00/- though he was entitled to the extent of half. A panchayati was held but the petitioners/accused with malafide intention ousted him from the business. It appears that complainant was examined on S.A and during enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure two witnesses were examined and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused/petitioners u/ss 406, 420/34 of the Penal Code issued summons against them. The argument of the learned counsel is that the entire alleged occurrence took place in the district of Munger and, therefore, the court at Saharsa has no jurisdiction to try the offence. He submitted that Kasturi Batika Pig Firm is situated in the district of Munger. It appears that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O. P. no.2 in which it has been mentioned that petitioner no.2, Ruby Devi @ Ruby Singh had entered into an agreement with complainant/O. P. no.2 on 6.8.2001 in which it was agreed that in case of any dispute the jurisdiction of Munger and Saharsa courts may be invoked for decision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that such agreement is against the statute and the same cannot be invoked in criminal cases. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. 3 Jurisdiction is conferred by statute and so consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction to criminal courts. Thus, the court at Saharsa has no jurisdiction to try the offence. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the continuance of present criminal prosecution at Saharsa would be an abuse of the process of the court. This application is, accordingly, allowed and impugned order of cognizance dated 1.9.2003 as against the petitioners is hereby quashed. BKS ( M. Saran, J.)