IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.32401 of 2006 ***** 1. Raj Kapoor Das @ Raj Kapoor, son of Banwari Das 2. Banwari Das, son of Late Bhajo Das 3. Handi Devi @ Hari Devi, Wife of Banwari Das 4. Sunil Das son of Banwari Das 5. Shobha Devi wife of Sunil Das 6. Kusum Kumari, D/o Banwari Das 7. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Das son of Banwari Das All resident of village- Oiyab, Police Station-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 8. Babita Devi wife of Sunil Das, resident of village- Noorsarai, Police Station-Noorsarai, District-Nalanda. 9. Ramjee Das son of Late Rajballam Das 10. Baby Devi wife of Ramjee Das All resident of village- Paijna, Police Station-Ghoshwari, District-Patna. 11. Gurushahay Das son of Late Bhatu Das, resident of village- Devi Sarai, Police Station Bihar Sharif, District-Nalanda. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Babita Devi wife of Rajkapoor Das, resident of village- Oiyab, Police Station-Asthawan, District-Nalanda, at present resident of village- Rawaich, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr. Niranjan Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 9. 30.6.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are all family members who have filed the present quashing application challenging the order dated 17.5.2006 by virtue of which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh rejected the petition for discharge filed by these petitioners in Trial No.321/2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 59(C) of 2004 for offences under Section 498A, 323, 360 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. - 2 - The complaint petition filed by one Babita Devi who is wife of petitioner no.1, namely, Raj Kapoor Das @ Raj Kapoor alleging therein that at the time of marriage, father of the complainant had given adequate dowry and marriage was held with due pomp and show. The couple was blessed with a female child in the year 2002. It is alleged that thereafter demands for money were illegally made, even a panchayati was held and the matter settled in the year 2004 but it did not help the situation because the harassment and ill-treatment continued and ultimately she was driven out of the house after keeping all her jewelry, clothes and utensils. Based on the complaint and the solemn affirmation cognizance was taken against the petitioners on 14.5.2004. The petitioners, therefore, decided to file a petition for discharge on many a grounds since even the extended family including the family members had been made accused in the case falsely though they did not even form the nucleus and were happily married and living elsewhere. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, however, rejected the discharge petition and held that there is sufficiency of material and evidence to frame charge under the sections in question and directed the petitioners to appear and face trial. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that the marriage was performed in Nalanda, which is not disputed, all the accused persons, even according to the narrations in the complaint, are resident of Nalanda, the so-called allegation of harassment and demand of dowry was made at Nalanda, which was the matrimonial home of the - 3 - complainant and, therefore, the order taking cognizance by the Barh Court lacks jurisdiction. It is a motivated piece of complaint which has been filed as an afterthought since the parties amicably had resolved their dispute after reaching a compromise dated 31.1.2004 which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 and it is much later it seems on provocation or instigation that the complainant left her matrimonial home, she decided to file a case at Barh on 14.2.2004. Learned senior counsel, therefore, on the basis of the two decisions rendered in the case of Manish Ratan v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 262 as well as a decision rendered in the case of Vijay Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar, 2008(2) PLJR 110 submits that the case on this ground alone is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel representing the complainant, namely, opposite party no.2, however, submits that there is nothing wrong with the order refusing to discharge these petitioners in the case concerned. A plain reading of the complaint and the narration thereof does make out the offence for which cognizance has been taken. The complaint came to be filed after the complainant was driven out of the house and she has filed the complaint from her parental home and since the parental home falls at Barh, the Barh Court has jurisdiction. But even on a plain reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein the bundle of facts which constitute the cause of action within the domain of Nalanda district, the matrimonial home. The reasoning or the logic offered by the counsel for the opposite parties is not good enough to allow continuance of the prosecution of these petitioners at Barh Court. Keeping the ratio of the two decisions which have been - 4 - rendered in the case of Manish Ratan and Vijay Kumar Roy (supra) the petitioners have an arguable case. Since the petitioners have made out a legal point in their favour, the Court comes to the considered opinion that the Court in question does lack jurisdiction and therefore it must be ousted from proceeding in the matter. The order taking cognizance as well as the impugned order dated 17.5.2006 rejecting the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners in Trial No. 321 of 2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 59(C) of 2004 stand quashed. The application is allowed. It is, however, recorded that the complainant is not precluded from pursing her matter if the law so permits before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if she is so advised. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)