IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16444 of 1999 1. SMT. BASANTI SHAW @ BABY , WIFE OF SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SHAW 2. DEBOBRATA SAHA SON OF SHREE RANJIT KUMAR SAHA 3. SATYA BRATA SAHA SON OF SHREE RANJIT KUMAR SAHA 4. RANJIT KUMAR SAHA SON OF LATE NILMONI SAHA. 5. NAMITA SAHA WIFE OF RANJIT KUMAR SAHA ALL RESIDENTS OF GOPI NANDI LANE, SUTRAGARH, SANTIPUR, P.S. SANTIPUR, DISTRICT- NADIA (WEST BENGAL) 6. SWAPAN KUMAR SAHA SON OF LATE PRAMOTHO NATH SAHA 7. SARDA SAHA ALIAS RUMA WIFE OF SHREE SWAPAN KUMAR SAHA, BOTH RESIDENTS OF 8/2D, BIRPARA LANE, DUM DUM, P.S. DUM DUM, CALCUTTA-700030 8. SITANGSU MANDAL ALIAS BAYTAY SON OF GANENDRA MANDAL 9. UMA MANDAL ALIAS BURI WIFE OF SITANGSU MANDAL BOTH RESIDENT OF SATHGHATA, GONDALPARA, P.S. CHANDAN NAGAR, DISTRICT- HOOGLY 10.MAMTA SAHA WIFE OF SHREE KASHI NATH SAHA, RESIDENT OF GREEN PARK, G.T. ROAD, P.S. BANDEL, DISTRICT- HOOGLY…………………………… PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAROJ KUMAR SHAW SON OF LATE INDRA BHUSHAN SHAW, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DARIYAPUR GOLA, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA… OPP. PARTIES. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. GOURANGA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- SMT. VEENA KUMARI JAISWAL ---------- 9 22-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order of cognizance dated 18-5-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1272 ( C )/1998 whereby the learned Magistrate while declining to take cognizance of any major 2 offences such as under sections 120-B,366,406 and 380 of the I.P.C., proceeded to take cognizance under sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1 is wife of the complainant and the other nine petitioners are her relations who have all been named as accused only to harass the petitioners in a false and frivolous case. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, once allegations in respect of theft and other major offences were not believed by the learned Magistrate, he should not have taken cognizance on false and frivolous allegation. In paragraph-19 of the complaint petition it has been stated that while refusing to return jewellery petitioner no.1 hurled abuses and forced him out of their house. The next contention is that the aforesaid occurrence of hurling abuses etc. have taken place at Shantipur at West Bengal and on that ground also the learned Magistrate should have declined to exercise his jurisdiction on the ground that no part of the occurrence for which cognizance was being taken related to territory within Patna, Bihar. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in view of several other allegations the complaint petition was maintainable at Patna but he admits that the complainant has not challenged the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to take cognizance of alleged offences under sections 366,406,380 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. On a careful perusal of the complaint petition and 3 entire facts and circumstances, it is found that no part of the occurrence in respect of offences under sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Patna. It is further found that the allegations in respect of assault is virtually non-existent and for that reason against the accused no cognizance should have been taken by the learned Magistrate. It is manifest from the entire facts and circumstances that it is not in the interest of justice to allow the continuance of the criminal case in question and the order of cognizance is found to be by a court which has no territorial jurisdiction. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons this application is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 18-5-1999 and the entire criminal proceedings are hereby quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)