IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15824 of 2006 SUBHASH KUMAR RAI @ SUBHASH RAI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 10. 12.8.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners who happen to be the husband and relatives of the husband of the complainant, who has been impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 23.7.2005 passed in Complaint Case No.370 of 2005 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 494 and 323 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to assail the impugned order on three grounds, firstly, that the court at Rosera had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case, secondly, that no offence under Section 494 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against the petitioner no.3 and thirdly that neither of the offences can be fastened on petitioner no.2, the alleged second wife of petitioner no.1, the husband of the complainant. Perhaps, the learned counsel for the petitioners is remiss of the fact that the cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. In this case cognizance had been taken under Sections 498A, 494 and 323 I.P.C. and at the time of framing of charge it will be open for the trial court to frame respective charges against the respective offenders. Merely, because no offence under Section 494 - 2 - I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against the father of the husband or that none of the offences can be said to have been made out against the petitioner no.2, are facts which may be seen and considered at the time of framing of charge. So far as the jurisdiction of the court at Rosera is concerned, it is clear from pages 5-6 of the complaint petition that on 15.5.2005 all the accused persons assaulted the complainant and tried to strangulate her and on her raising hulla the accused persons called a Marshal Jeep, forcibly dragged the complainant into it and after gagging her mouth took her to Rosera where she was pushed out of the vehicle at the door step of her uncle, Vidyanand Rai. This action of the accused persons amounts to an act of cruelty and since it was committed within the District of Rosera, the Rosera Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)