CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36073 OF 2007 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. …. ------- 1.BEAUTY KUMARI @ BEAUTY JHA @ RUBY JHA D/o Jayant Jha 2.Shanti Lata Jha wife of Jaykant Jha 3.Bijay Kant Jha @ Somu son of Jaykant Jha 4.Jaykant Jha son of late Parmeshwar Jha 5.Sanjay Kant Jha @ Munna son of Jaykant Jha All resident of village-Sardhi, P.S.-Tarapur, Dist.-Munger. …… …….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sudha Kumari @ Sudha Jha D/o Mritunjay Thakur Resident of village-Manikpur, P.S.Sahkund, Dist.-Bhagalpur at present residing at Shrath Chandra Path Masak Chak, P.S.-Adampur(Kotwali) Dist.-Bhagalpur …… ……… Opp.Parties ------- For the petitioners: Mr.Farookh Ahmad Khan, Mr.Kamal Kihsore Jha Mr.Raina Kumari For Opp.Party No.2: Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, Addl.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.7.2004 passed by Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1497 of 2003. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no. 2 who is wife petitioner no.5 filed a complaint in the court of 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1497 of 2003, against the petitioners on allegation of offences committed under Sections 323/34, 498(A)/34, 379,406 and 504 of the Indian penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 5th June, 2002 with petitioner no.5 Sanjay Kant Jha alias Munna. Before solemnization of marriage, through Bank drafts, about Rs.2,95,000/- was paid to the in-laws of the complainant. On the day of marriage, other articles were also presented. Subsequently, the complainant went to her in-laws house at Sindri. Immediately thereafter the accused persons started torturing mentally and physically to the complainant with a view to extract more dowry. In the complaint petition in detail the allegation of torturing has been mentioned. The complainant was compelled to telephonically ask for rupees one lakh as more dowry. The father of the complainant along with others after telephonic talk with his daughter went to the house of the accused persons and persuaded them to keep the complainant happily and gave Rs.30,000/- to them. In the complaint petition it has also been indicated that on 12.10.2003 the husband of the complainant i.e. petitioner no.5, petitioner no.3, who is brother of husband of the complainant and petitioner no. 4 who is father- in-law of the complainant came to the house of father of the complainant and they again demanded remaining amount of Rs.70,000/-. Finally due to non-fulfilment of remaining demand, 3 the complainant was brutally assaulted and she was ousted from the house of her in-laws and entire ornaments were forcibly taken by the accused persons. It was indicated that the complainant was in family way and due to that reason after some time complaint petition was filed. After filing of the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry and by the impugned order i.e. 23.7.2004 took cognizance of the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 23.7.2004, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition which was admitted on 6.11.2007 and an order of stay was passed. 4. Mr.Farooque Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while challenging the order of cognizance at the very outset has raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction. According to him learned Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur was not competent to take cognizance. It was submitted that in the present case, all the alleged offences were committed at Sindri and, as such, the court of Bhagalpur was not having territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance. Sri Khan has further submitted that in the complaint petition it was mentioned that after marriage the complainant had gone to Quarter No. K.D.47, Sindri at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand and at that place it was alleged that she was physically and mentally tortured by the accused persons. It was 4 argued while referring to Annexure -2 to the petition i.e. photo copy of the communication issued by Chief Executive Officer, Fertilizer Corporation of India that petitioner no.5 was allotted Quarter which had already been vacated on 30.12.2002. It was submitted that annexure-2 was the certified copy of ‘No Dues Certificate’. Learned counsel has also referred to annexure-3 to the petition to show that the husband of the complainant was employed at Faridabad from February, 2003 to November, 2003. Learned counsel has also referred to page 21 and 22 of the petition in which it has been mentioned that petitioner no.3 brother of husband of the complainant was a student of NIMT Ghaziabad (U.P.) and he regularly attended the course from February, 2003 to November, 2005. In support of his argument that the learned Magistrate was not having territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, learned counsel has relied on the judgments (i) 2010(3) PLJR-851(Debashish Dey Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), (ii) 2007(3) PLJR 269(Suresh Das Harijan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors,), (iii) 2010(1) SCC (Cr.) 101 (M.N.Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava & Anr.) and 2004(8) SCC-100 (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.). While referring the aforesaid judgments it has been argued that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. Mishra, during the 5 course of hearing, produced a certified copy of the order dated 4.10.2005 passed in Cr.Revision No.221 of 2005 (Jaykant Jha Vs. State of Bihar) whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had rejected the revision petition which was preferred against the order dated 23.7.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.1457 of 2003 (impugned order of the learned Magistrate). It was submitted that the petitioners have made an incorrect and false statement in para-2 of the petition to the extent that they have not moved this court or court of Sessions in this matter earlier (certified copy of the order dated 4.10.2005 passed in Cr.Revision No.221 of 2005 may be kept on the record of the present case). Mr. Mishra has further submitted that from the contents of the complaint petition, it is evident that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the offence. It was argued that in case part of cause of action arise at two places, at both places court is competent to take cognizance and on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, order of cognizance cannot be set aside in the present case. It was further submitted that from the contents of the complaint petition itself it is evident that it was a clear cut case of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he has submitted that the petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has taken the same stand which was taken by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel 6 appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. 7. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. So far as the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners that quarter in question was vacated prior to the alleged date of occurrence on the strength of annexure-2 is concerned, the court is of the opinion that this fact cannot be examined while hearing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court is also not persuaded to record a definite finding on the basis of annexure-3 at page 20-21 and annexure-4 at page 22 of the petition. On perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, the court is of the opinion that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur and in that view of the matter, the order of cognizance on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be interfered with. In view of the fact that part of cause of action arose within Bhagalpur, the judgment referred above by learned counsel for the petitioners may not be of any help to the petitioners. In all those cases, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the court has held that on of lack of territorial jurisdiction, order of cognizance can be set aside. The judgments, referred above by learned counsel for the petitioners, have got no application, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In view of the averments made in the complaint petition and materials on record, the court is satisfied 7 that while taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. The court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 10. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 6.11.2007 stands automatically vacated. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 26th November,2010 Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)