IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30713 of 2006 1. NARESH PRASAD SINGH @ NARESH SINGH 2. VASISTH NARAYAN SINGH 3. NIRMALA SINGH @ NIRMALA DEVI 4. SHIVENDRA SIGH, RESIDENTS OF DHARAMPUR, KHAIRA, JAMUI AND 5. BOBBY SINGH @ BOBBY DEVI W/O MASAURHI, JAMUI. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR AND 2. RADHA DEVI W/O NARESH SINGH, DHARAMPUR, JAMUI. ----------- For the petitioners :- Bindhyachal Singh, R.B.Singh For opp.party:- N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Advocate and V.Anand. For the State:- I.B.Pandey, Addl.P.P. --------- 15 29.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the informant. 2. Petitioners pray for quashing order dated 4.1.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in complaint case no. 3176 of 2005, whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, has taken cognizance of offence under section 498A and summoned the accused petitioners to face trial. 3. The complainant stated that she married petitioner no.1, namely, Naresh Prasad Singh alias Naresh Singh in the year 1999. The second marriage (Gowna) was performed after a year. Thereafter, she - 2 - went to Jabalpur where her husband worked as Commercial clerk in the Railways. The elder brother of her husband, one B.N. Singh also worked as Accounts clerk in Jamui. The accused persons kept her well for sometime but thereafter her husband and other in-laws began to torture her for non fulfillment of demand of motorcycle, colour television etc. The complainant anyhow after mortgaging his land paid Rs. 5000/- for purchase of motorcycle. However as other demands were not fulfilled, accused persons continued to torture her. She also alleged that her husband has affair with another woman and in state of intoxication even used to utter her name. As the complainant feared threat to her life, she left Jabalpur and came to her parents house in Jamui. Thereafter she lodged this case in the year 2000. 4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that Jamui court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even. The Complaint case does not disclose that any offence was committed within territorial jurisdiction of the Jamui court, as entire occurrence is - 3 - alleged to have been committed at Jabalpur. Learned counsel relied upon judgments rendered in case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, reported in (2004)8 SCC 100, Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M. P. and another, reported in (2007)1 SCC 262 as well as in case of Bhure Ram Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(3) Supreme Court 367 and a bench decision of the Court in case of Md. Kalim & others Vs. The State of Bihar & another, reported in 2009(1) PLJR 111. 5. He further submits that order of cognizance is also barred under section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed under section 498A I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken under section 498A I.P.C. The complainant admits in her S.A. that she left Jabalpur in year 2001 and came to her parents’ house in the district of Jamui and has continuously remained there. Learned counsel submits that the maximum punishment under section 498A I.P.C. is 3 years, as such, application u/s 468(2)(C) Cr.P.C. should have been filed within 3 years of the offence last committed in - 4 - 2001. Thus order of cognizance under section 498A I.P.C. on 4.1.2006 after more than four years is time barred. He further submits that there was no application for condonation of delay under section 473 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for Opp.party no. 2 submits that Jamui court has jurisdiction to try the instant complaint case . He submits that there is allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had affairs with another woman whose name he used to take under influence of drinks. Thus case would also come under purview of section 494 I.P.C. He submits that a complaint u/s 498A I.P.C. can be filed at any of three places. (i) Firstly, where the offence was committed. (ii) Secondly, where the couple last lived. (iii)Thirdly, where the complainant permanently resides. 7. In support of contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision reported in case of Rabindra Kaur Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in 1985, Cri. L.J. 601. He submits that when a woman is subjected to torture and cruelty, she can maintain complaint even at - 5 - her parents place, though no offence may have committed there. In support of contention, learned counsel has relied upon decision rendered in Arun Khanna Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1994(1) PLJR 513, Pramod Narain Sharma and others Vs. the State of Bihar and another, reported in 2007(2) PLJR 105 and case of Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agrawal and others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3499. 8. So far as issue of complaint being time barred is concerned, the learned counsel for the Opp.party no. 2 submits that the offence u/s 498A is continuing one and there is no bar in taking cognizance even after three years of its commission of offence. 9. Heard the petitioner, State and the informant and perused the records. 10. It would appear that complaint was filed under section 498A I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken for offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and not u/s 494 I.P.C. Section 494 I.P.C. would be applicable where a husband or the wife contracts second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, unless and until the same is saved by - 6 - some provisions of law. In the case in hand, the complainant has levelled allegation at the worst that petitioner no.1 was having affair with another woman. In her SA, the complainant alleges that her husband used to give threat of contracting another marriage. In this view of the matter, decision rendered in case of Rabinder Kaur Vs. Gurmit Singh and others, reported in 1985 Cri.L.J., 601 would not be applicable in the instant case, as the aforesaid case, cognizance was taken u/s 494 I.P.C. In such circumstances, the court had held that in view of section 182(2) Cr.P.C., complaint can be even maintainable at the place where the complainant last resided. 11. Now, I would discuss other judgments relied upon by Opp. party no. 2, particularly case of Arun Khanna Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1994(1) PLJR 513. In the aforesaid case, the learned judge observed that while construing question of jurisdiction with respect to offence under section 498A, one should not forget the social background and the object for which the parallel prosecution has been engrafted. The learned - 7 - court observed that provisions of section 498A I.P.C. are intended to provide benefit and relief to the females who constitute the weaker section of the society. The offence being a continuing offence, it must be given extended meaning and therefore, Dhanbad court will have jurisdiction and the complaint was duly maintainable at Dhanbad court where the woman resided with her parents. 12. The next case that was relied by Opp.party no. 2 is of Pramod Narain Sharma and others Vs. the State of Bihar and another, reported in 2007(2) PLJR 105. In aforesaid case, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 10.7.2004 took cognizance under sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner Pramod Narayan Sharma challenged the same on the ground that as no cause of occurrence took place in territorial jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur, the courts therein did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance. The learned judge after hearing the parties held that merely because no cause of action took place within territorial - 8 - jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur, it cannot be said that Muzaffarpur courts did not have jurisdiction to try the case in backdrop and chain of events arising in the case. 13. In case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others, the Apex court held that in view of sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. no complaint can be filed within territorial jurisdiction of the court, where no offence took place. 14. The Apex court noticed that the complainant lived with her husband in Nagarcoil, where offence under section 498A was committed. Thereafter due to repeated torture, the complainant left her husband’s place and came to Chennai and filed complaint. The plea of the complainant before the Apex Court was that the offence under section 498A and 494 I.P.C. is a continuous offence and as such, the same can be filed at Chennai also. The Apex Court rejecting the plea of the complainant held that the offence is not a continuing one, and as no part of offence took place at Chennai, the Court at Channai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Apex court affirmed its view in case of Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of - 9 - M. P. and another, reported in (2007)1 SCC 262 and Bhure Ram Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(3) Supreme Court 367. The view of learned Single judge in case of Arun Khanna Vs. State of Bihar, (Supra) reported in 1994(1) PLJR 513 that the offence is continuing offence does not hold ground in view of pronouncements of Apex court in aforesaid cases. 15. Learned counsel for the Opp.party no. 2 relying upon a decision reported in case of Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agrawal and others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3499 submits that criminal prosecution should not be quashed at the threshold. In the aforesaid case, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham (Gujrat) for offence of cheating against another Company located at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Accused Directors of the Company moved the High court of Gujarat under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. A learned single judge of the High court - 10 - quashed the complaint as also the order passed thereof by the Magistrate. The Apex Court held that in such circumstances that quashing of complaint was not proper and also premature. In the instant case, the petitioners have not prayed for quashing the complaint on ground that no case is made out, but has challenged the jurisdiction of the Jamui court to proceed with the case. Furthermore, petitioners have moved this Court, after taking of cognizance and not at the stage of investigation, as was the case in Trisuns Chemical industry. 16. In the back drop of aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the Jamui court will not have jurisdiction to try the case, as such, the impugned order taking cognizance, dated 4.1.2007, in a complaint case no. 317C of 2005 and the entire criminal prosecution arising thereof is quashed. As the petitioner has succeeded on this point, this Court has not gone into the second issue, whether the complaint was barred under section 468(2) (C) Cr.P.C. 17. However, it will be open to the complainant - 11 - to file appropriate complaint before the appropriate forum. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)