IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31593 of 2008 1. MOSTT.NILAM DEVI, WIFE OF LATE VIBHUTI PANDEY 2. MRINAL PANDEY @ RAJAN SON OF LATE VIBHUTI PANDEY, ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA L.I.C. COLONY, NAHAR PARK, P.S. DUMKA, TOWN, DUMKA. ..PETIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARCHANA DEVI WIFE OF ASHOK TIWARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MUNDICHAK, DURGAASTHAN, PADHAKRISHNA MANDIR, P.S. KOTWALI, BHAGALPUR. ..OPPOSITE For the petitioners :Mr.N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate For O.P. No.2 :Mr.Ranjan kr. Jha For State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 15.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners, who are in-laws of the husband, are aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2007, passed by learned SDJM, Bhagalpur in Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.475/06 arising out of Complaint Case No.1037/06. By the said order, learned Magistrate on a consideration of the police report, has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case punishable under sections 498-A,504 323 and 120-B IPC as also ¾ of the D.P. Act and, accordingly cognizance has been taken. O.P.No.2 complainant(herein) filed a complaint(complaint case No.1037/06) alleging therein that she was married with accused Ashok Tiwari at Bhagalpur on 04.07.2003 according to Hindu rituals. The second marriage was performed on 04.12.2003. She went to the matrimonial home located in the district of Dumka (Jharkhand). The in-laws started demanding a - 2 - sum of Rs.50, 000/- from her parents. Some of the co- accuseds even tried to molest her, but she could anyhow escape the said attempt. On account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was tortured in diverse way. On 02.06.2006, she was driven out of her matrimonial home in presence of her father. She came back to Naihar. When her father contacted them on telephone, the in-laws started demanding dowry and it was made plain to them that only after fulfilment of demand of dowry the complainant shall be allowed re-entry into the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that she again went to the matrimonial home where the in-laws, including husband, started torturing her both physically and mentally. The father of the complainant made phone calls from Bhagalpur in order to pacify the situation whereafter the accused persons refused to talk to him. The torture meted out to her was informed to the father who rushed to Dumka to rescue her. It is alleged that she has been forced to live with her parents on account of such torture and ouster. Learned Magistrate transmitted the said complaint to the police for institution of the case and accordingly the FIR was registered. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted which formed basis of the impugned order. While assailing the sustainability of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court at Bhagalpur shall have no territorial jurisdiction as each and every part of allegation/cause of action had taken place in the district of - 3 - Dumka. If the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint then the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law for want of territorial jurisdiction. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. [(2004) 8 S.C.C. 100]. Learned counsel representing the complainant/informant, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. Referring to each and every paragraph of the complaint which formed basis of the FIR, it is alleged that the offence was continuing one. The informant was tortured and driven out of matrimonial home and thereby forced to live with her parents. When her father contacted the accuseds on telephone, they demanded cash payment of dowry in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and it was made plain to him that only after payment of the said amount, his daughter shall be allowed to come back to matrimonial home. It is thus the contention of the counsel that cruelty or torture would include both physical and mental. Ousting wife from matrimonial home and forcing her to live at her Naihar is a kind of mental torture which is continuing in the present case. It is thus submitted that both the courts below shall have territorial jurisdiction. On a consideration of rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds from the prosecution case that the marriage in question had taken place at Bhagalpur which - 4 - established relationship of husband and wife. She went to the matrimonial home where, for want of fulfilment of dowry, she was tortured and left to fend herself. She was ousted from matrimonial home and forced to live at her Naihar. When her father established contact with the accused persons telephonically, demand of dowry was made and it was stated that the wife(complainant) shall not be allowed to come back to the matrimonial home until and unless the said amount is paid. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner is also facing charge under section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. Demanding dowry is an offence. This Court, on going through the complaint between the lines (which forms basis of the FIR) gets an impression that offence is continuing one. Forcible ouster and making her to stay with her parents by not allowing her to go back to matrimonial home is torture. That continues. Phone calls made from Bhagalpur by father only to receive threats of the consequences of not fulfilling the demand of dowry shall give cause of action to the court at Bhagalpur. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, seems unsustainable in law. In fairness to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apposite to consider the judgment cited by him. This Court on perusal of the judgment rendered in Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra ) finds that the Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that the complainant/informant of the case on her own free will left the matrimonial home and came to stay with her relation at a - 5 - different place where she ultimately filed a case. The facts of the present case are, therefore, fundamentally different and distinct. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )