IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.84 of 2009 NARANGI DEVI, W/o. Rajesh Kumar, r/o. Village- Janardanpur, P.S. Durgawati, District- Kaimur. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Ram Bhajan Ram, 3. Ram Bhajan Ram, S/o. Deo Lakhan Ram, 4. Phuljhari Devi, W/o. Ram Bhajan Ram, 5. Satish Kumar, S/o. Ram Bhajan Ram, 6. Rakesh Kumar, S/o. Ram Bhajan Ram, 7. Santosh Devi, W/o. Satish Kumar, All r/o. Village- Parewa, P.S. Shayad Raja, District- Chandowati, U.P. 8. Chandradeo Ram, S/o. not known, R/o. Village- Tithapur, P.S. Sakaldiha, District- Chandawati, U.P. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. For the Ops.: Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate. For the Sate: Mr. S.N. Prasad, Addl.P.P. ----------- 13. 23.04.2010 This application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal was heard at the stage of admission. The prayer in this application is to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2008 as passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kaimur under Complaint Case No. 1349 of 2004/T.R. No. 570 of 2009, whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner Narangi Devi had filed her complaint giving rise to the said Complaint Case No.1349 of 2004. The petitioner’s present address is 2 stated to be at village Janardanpur, P.S. Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua in the State of Bihar. Her matrimonial house i.e., the house of the husband where she states to have been married is stated to be at village Paraiya, P.S. Saiyad Raja, District- Chandauli in the State of U.P. The complainant alleged that she was married to O.P. No.2 Rajesh Kumar on 08.02.2000. The other O.Ps. 3 to 8 are stated to be in-laws. It was further stated in the complaint that after marriage the petitioner went to her matrimonial house in the year 2003 after the gauna rituals. Then it was alleged that for sometime she lived a peaceful life at her Sasural, but thereafter, the O.Ps. started demanding one V.C.P., one C.T.V. and also cash Rs.50,000/- for investing in business. It was alleged that due to non-fulfillment of the demand she was tortured mentally and physically in various ways which was described in the complaint petition. She also alleged that on 07.12.2004 she was ousted from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she started living at her Maika. She also alleged that her father and brother went to her matrimonial house and requested for 3 keeping her there but the O.Ps. abused them and they were adamant on their demand of Rs.50,000/- and they stated that unless demand was fulfilled the complainant will not be allowed to live in matrimonial house. After filing of the complaint, cognizance for the offence was taken and the O.Ps.2 to 8 were tried by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial witnesses were examined. On conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. In his judgment the learned Magistrate discussed the evidence as adduced through the witnesses produced from both the sides. The learned Magistrate analyzed the evidence but in the concluding portion of his judgment he considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh and others V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 1989, wherein it was held that in such case relating to offence under Section 498A I.P.C., the place of trial would be the place where the offence is committed. 4 In the instant case, the offence alleged is said to have been committed at the complainant’s matrimonial house. Nothing is indicated to show that the offence is of a continuing nature. There is no allegation that after the complainant’s leaving her matrimonial house any kind of demand was made at her parental house i.e., the Maika. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abraham Ajit and others V. Inspector of Police, Chainnai and others, wherein similar view in respect of the offence under Section 498A and others was taken and it was held that in view of the provisions under Section 177 & 178 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 the forum of trial would be that within whose jurisdiction the commission of the offence is alleged. In view of the decisions as cited, the learned trial Court held in its judgment that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. But, despite holding so, the learned Magistrate also passed the order acquitting the O.Ps. 2 to 8 of the charges. It was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel 5 that there is no dispute over the material that in such a case when the offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of Courts within the district of Chandauli in the State of U.P., the case should have been tried there, but the learned counsel has put his objection over that part of the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he has passed an order of acquittal of the O.Ps. 2 to 8. It is submitted that if O.P. No.2 are once acquitted of the charges there will be a legal bar in their fresh trial before the Court of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, it is submitted that at least that portion of the order under the impugned judgment be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not put any objection to that part of the finding of the learned Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction to try the offence as has been held in view of the principles laid down in the sited decisions. Thus hearing, I find that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. In such view of the matters, the only course open to the learned Magistrate was that he would have returned the complaint to the complainant for filing it before a Court of competent 6 jurisdiction. So far that part of the impugned judgment, which orders for the acquittal of the O.Ps. 2 to 8 is concerned, I find that it was an order which was entirely a surpluses and the learned Magistrate had no authority to pass such order of acquittal when he himself had no jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate in so far as is directs the acquittal of the O.Ps. 2 to 8 is set aside. The learned Magistrate will return the complaint to the complainant for filing it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The S.L.A. is accordingly disposed of. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)