IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22267 of 2008 MD.SHARFUDDIN, SON OF MOTI AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR BHAUGHAUNI, P.S. BAINI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ZENAT PRAVEEN, DAUGHTER OF LATE MD. RAUF, WIFE OF MD. SHARFUDDIN AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE SANAICHATTI, P.S. JAMUEE, DISTRICT JAMUEE ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Advocate For the opposite party :- Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 3 16.11.2009 A complaint case numbered as 526 of 2008 was filed by Zenat Praveen alleging therein that her in-laws and husband were demanding Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of dowry. The only point that has been raised in this case is that the case does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jamui rather the occurrence is said to have taken place at Samastipur and, therefore the Court at Samastipur is the proper Court which was entitled to take cognizance in this case. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages “Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” The allegations in the complaint petition which was later converted into a First Information Report specifically state that on 18.4.2008 the accused persons 1 and 2 had gone to the maternal home of the complaint/informant and wanted to take her back with them to her husband’s house. The brothers of the complainant did not allow them to take the girl back without there being a proper written agreement between the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant on the basis of the aforesaid allegations submits that in fact the husband 2 of the complainant/informant had not come to maternal home but had sent the elder brother and his wife to the house of the complainant/informant for the purposes of “Rukhsati”. It is further submitted that during the course of taking evidence this aspect of the matter has been further explained by the brother of the informant by stating that the brother and his wife had specifically stated that unless the complainant and her family member pay up the dowry amount, the complainant/informant would not be welcome back in her husband’s house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements made in the complaint petition do not make out a jurisdiction within the Court of Jamui. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Ram Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 1(SC) and in the case of M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd. reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 86(SC), has quashed the order of cognizance on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction did not lie within the Court, which had taken cognizance in these cases. In both these cases the dispute was inter state and the Supreme Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 and transferred the case to the State where jurisdiction fell. I may refer to a judgment reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC 3499 (Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.) wherein the Supreme Court while discussing the Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that “every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried 3 by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” I may also point out that Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that “No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.” The question of jurisdiction is a question of fact and it is available to the petitioners at any stage of the trial therefore, per se the order of cognizance in itself cannot be held to be bad on the ground that the Court taking cognizance lacks the jurisdiction to do so. The petitioners would have the liberty to raise this question at a later stage of the case and the Court below may consider all aspects of the matter and pass an appropriate order, if the Court below finds that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to try the case, it would always be open for the complainant to get the case transferred to the Court which has the jurisdiction to hear the matter. This application is disposed with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)