IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49895 of 2007 1. SHYAMDEO RAM, son of Ram Prasad Dhobi 2. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Ram Prasad Dhobi 3. Ram Prasad Dhobi, son of late Banshi Dhobi All residents of Mauja Jai Nagar, P.S. Jai Nagar, District Koderma, Jharkhand, presently residing at Baghmara, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Asha Devi, wife of Shyamdeo Ram, resident of village Daulatpurganj, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad (Bihar) ----------- 5. 29.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The impugned order taking cognizance for offence u/ss 498A/380 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is sought to be assailed by the husband petitioner on two grounds, namely, (i) The reading of the entire complaint petition would go to show that no part of offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Aurangabad court and therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance by the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad was wholly without jurisdiction. (ii)As a matter of fact it was a malafide prosecution, inasmuch as the 2 petitioners had earlier filed the divorce case on 25.7.2006 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad being Suit No. 301/2006 and the present complaint case was filed only thereafter on 18.1.2007. It has to be noted that despite issuance of notice and its being served on O.P.No.2 no one has appeared to oppose the prayer of the petitioners. This Court, however, having heard learned counsel for the State, who after going through the records has not been able to find anything to show that any part of the alleged occurrence had been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. This Court also finds sufficient force in the submission that the prosecution of the petitioners was malafide and the resultant outcome of the divorce suit filed by him in the year 2006. This aspect of the matter with regard to territorial jurisdiction in the case of offence u/s 498A I.P.C. stands settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) vs. Prashant Kumar 3 Mukherjee, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30. Thus, keeping in view the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) (supra) as also considering the averments made in the complaint filed by O.P.No.2 it is clear that the offence, if at all was committed only within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad in the matrimonial home of O.P.No.2. Consequently the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, the prosecution of the petitioners is fit to be quashed. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance and the resultant criminal prosecution as against the petitioners is quashed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/