IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.11170 of 2005 1. RAJ KUMAR Son of Late Jagdhari Ram 2. Mrs. Patraji Devi W/o Late Jagdhari Ram 3. Mr. Adalati Ram @ Adalat 4. Mr. Madalti Ram @ Madalti 5. Mr. Sadalti Ram @ Sadalti All (3 to 5 above) sons of Late Jagdhari Ram, R/o Samapur Khalsa, P.S. Ranisarai, Distt. Ajamgarh (U.P.). . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pramila Devi d/o Late Ramdin Ram, permanent r/o village Daudpur, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, Distt. Ajamgarh (U.P.), at present residing at Indrapuri, P.S. Patliputra, Distt. Patna. . . . . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 12/ 18.01.2010 Heard. The petitioners pray for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of trial no. 1949 of 2004 and order dated 09.09.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1330 (C) of 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners have made the aforesaid prayer on the ground that the Patna Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint case, as no cause of action took place in Patna District, in view of own admission of the complainant in the complaint petition. The petitioners further state that the order taking cognizance is barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The Complainant filed Complaint case before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna bearing Complaint case no. 1330 C of 2004 on 15.06.2004 against her husband, mother-in-law, three brothers of the husband and their wives. The complainant stated that she was married in the year 1989 with the accused / petitioner, Raj Kumar, who is - 2 - resident of Village Raipur, P.S. Man Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, at present T.T.E, Northern Railway, Allahabad City. She stated that just after her marriage, the accused persons began to torture her for demand of dowry. In 1995, the accused persons ousted her with her children from the house, as such she reached Patna along with the bare clothes she was wearing. The accused persons even snatched the articles that were gifted to her at the time of marriage. She stated that one of her two children died in the year, 2003. She conveyed the aforesaid informations to her Sasural in Azamgarh District in the State of U.P. She stated that on 08.11.2001 the accused persons took ex-parte decree of divorce from Family Court, Azamgarh (U.P) in Original Case No. 72 of 2000 by giving incorrect and wrong address of the complainant. She states that the Vakalatnama alleged to be filed by her, was in fact not signed by her. She learnt about the aforesaid divorce decree dated 08.11.2001 on 15.01.2004. A copy of decree of divorce in Divorce Suit no. 72 of 2000 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the complaint petition. She learnt that a Misc. petition bearing no. 133 of 2001 was filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce, which was dismissed for default on 08.11.2001. She also came to learn about it on 20.01.2004. She further alleged in complaint that she did not file any Misc. case bearing no. 133 of 2001 for setting aside the divorce decree. The complainant in complaint case has shown her address as resident of Indrapuri, P.S. Patliputra in the District of Patna. In enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. she produced two witnesses - 3 - namely her brother and uncle in support of the prosecution case. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner no.1, the husband of the complainant, petitioner no.2 the mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner nos. 3 to 5, who are brothers of petitioner no.1. The court did not find sufficient materials to proceed against wives of petitioner nos. 3 to 5. The counsel for petitioners submits that the Patna Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. In this respect, he relied upon a decision in the case of Manish Ratan & Ors Vs. State of M.P. and Ano. Reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262. He has taken other points also that the complaint is time barred and in support of his submission learned counsel has relied upon decisions reported in Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Shekhar Mohanty reported in (2007) 7 SCC 394, Bharat Damodar Kale & Ano. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 559. The petitioners further contended that as a divorce decree was passed by order dated 08.11.2001 by Family Court, Azamgarh (U.P.) in Original Case No. 72 of 2000, the complainant was no longer wife of petitioner no. 1, and as such the complaint under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code was not maintainable. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties submits that the complaint is fully maintainable at Patna, as the offence is a continuing offence. He further submits that the divorce decree is a collusive decree and as such the same would not be binding upon the complainant. I will take up the first issue whether the Patna Court has - 4 - jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case or not. It would appear from the complaint case that the place of occurrence has been mentioned as Village Raipur, P.S. Mani Ki Sarai in the District of Azamgarh, U.P. It has been claimed that the offence being a continuing one, persists since 1995. The complainant in paragraph 2 has mentioned that she was married on 04.05.1989, but did not state the place of marriage. It would appear from the address mentioned in the complaint that the accused persons reside in the District of Azamgarh in the State of U.P. The Complainant has stated in paragraph 3 of the complaint that in the year 1995 all the accused persons assaulted her and drove her out from her Sasural and subsequently she reached Patna without any of her belongings and money. From the perusal of the complaint case it nowhere transpires that any part of occurrence took place in the district of Patna. She admits in the complaint case that a divorce suit was filed against her being Original Case no. 72 of 2000, in which there was an ex-parte decree on 08.11.2001. She further states that in complaint that one Pramila Devi, in her name, filed a Misc. petition before Azamgarh Court for setting aside the divorce decree which too was dismissed for default. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Ano. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 that no complaint can be entertained by a court within whose local jurisdiction, the occurrence did not take place. In case of Manish Ratan (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held - 5 - that High Court erred in taking the view that as the wife was forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of torture by her in-laws, it amounted to mental cruelty and harassment which continued even at the place of her father at Datia and therefore, the offence may be inquired into and tried also at Datia court. The Supreme Court negatived the view of the High Court and held that in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C., the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction some cause of action took place. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that “no cause of action took place within the Datia court where the father of the girl resided”. In view of the own averments made in the complaint petition, I find that no cause of occurrence took place within Patna court and as such the latter did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The judgment reported in Manish Ratan (Supra) will be fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the case of the petitioners succeeds on this point alone, I do not find it expedient to refer to the other grounds raised by them. In the result, this application succeeds, the criminal proceeding and the impugned order dated 09.09.2004 passed in Tr. No. 1949 of 2004 (Complaint Case no. 1330 C of 2004) is hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the complainant to file complaint before appropriate court. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)