IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.711 OF 2008 1. RAMAPATI DEVI @ RAMAWATI DEVI, WIFE OF KEDAR SINGH 2. KEDAR SINGH, SON OF CHANDRAMA SINGH, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHATURI TOLA, P.S. DOKTI, DISTRICT BALIA (UTTAR PRADESH)………………………………………….………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER OF HOME DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. NITTU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHANPURA, P.S. MANJHI, DISTRICT SARAN……………………………………….………….RESPONDENTS -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. M.S. Madhup, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Pravesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent no.2 : M/s Nagendra Rai & Navin Nikunj, Advocates For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, G.A. No.1 4. 23.03.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the entire proceeding pertaining to Complaint Case no.1520/2007, Tr. No.3767/07 pending in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra as well as the order passed by him on 23.08.2007 taking cognizance under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and issuing summons to the petitioners and other accused persons to face trial. - 2 - Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that on the face of the complaint petition itself, it will appear that no cause of action arose to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra to enable her to file a complaint before him. He submits that the entire complaint shows that the alleged incident had happened at matrimonial home in the district of Balia. He submits that there is no whisper in the complaint that after the complainant came to her Naihar at Chapra, there was any overt act committed by the petitioners and other accused persons which could give any cause of action to her. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that after the petitioner had returned to her parental home in Chapra, her father and relations had gone to Balia to settle the matter but failed. Thereafter, this complaint was filed in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Chapra. He submits that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence and cause of action arose to the complainant within the - 3 - jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. Therefore, the complaint petition was filed there. This Court perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant. It is apparent that there is not a single sentence in the complaint levelling allegations against the accused persons of having committed any overt act while the complainant was at Chapra so as to give her any cause of action to file complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. The statement pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, as made in the complaint, is also not sufficient to give her cause of action. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4286 wherein under similar circumstance, the court has found the complaint petition filed as not maintainable on account of want of jurisdiction. The court found that since the cause of action giving rise to the offence under Section 498A of the - 4 - I.P.C. had not arisen within the jurisdiction of the court concerned; the court concerned was not legally authorized to take cognizance in the matter. The said judgment squarely applies in this case also. In the circumstances, this Court finds that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the complainant and, therefore, the order dated 23.8.2007 taking cognizance and issuing processes against the petitioners and other accused persons is bad in law. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The said order dated 23.08.2007 and the entire proceeding pertaining to Complaint case No.1520/2007, Trial No.3767/07 are quashed but without any bar to the complainant to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)