IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.361 of 2008 NIRMALA DEVI @ NILU, W/O. LATE BIJENDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BASOBAGI, P.S. – BARH, DISTRICT – PATNA. ………………… PETITIOENR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. YOGENDRA YADAV, S/O. LATE AMRIT YADAV, VILLAGE – BASOBAGI, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT PATNA. ……………………. OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04/ 12 .05.2010 This petition is directed against the order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barh in Complaint Case No. 668 (C) of 2005 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 304 (B) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint petition was entertained by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barh, whereas the alleged occurrence took place in Nalanda District at Village Araut at the Sasural of deceased Renu Devi where she was residing with her in-laws and place of occurrence in the complaint shown to be at village Araut, District – Nalanda and hence the Court at District Nalanda alone has jurisdiction to entertain and the Court at Barh has no jurisdiction to hold enquiry and trial and hence cognizance taken and 2 continuation of any proceeding in the jurisdiction of Barh is not permitted in law and has placed reliance upon a decisions reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2008 (3) PLJR 367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 2009 (2) PLJR 950 Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Vedi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar. 3. However, the prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition is that Renu Kumari, the daughter of the complainant was married in the year 1999 with Navin Yadav accused no. 1 and there is allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- and further the allegation that the family members of the husband used to demand and pressurize for the payment of the said demand and subjecting her to cruelty both physical and mental. The further case is that at the birth of first child the invitation was sent in Sataisha and the sister of the accused no. 1 the husband came to village Basobadi under the Barh Police Station and pressurized for the demand of dowry and even threats and further this petitioner Nirmala Devi took her from Barh to her Nayhar and there is further allegation of subjecting cruelty by passing sarcastic remarks abused and assaulted. 3 4. The further case is that the maternal grand daughter of the informant Banti Kumari who happens to be the daughter of the deceased came to Bakhtiyarpur and disclosed that his mother has been done to death by her father, uncle and then they took her grand daughter to Basobadi. 5. However, having regard to the fact that some part of the occurrence about the demand and subjecting cruelty and threat has been occurred as alleged in the complaint petition at Basobadi under the Barh Police Station in Patna District and hence, under these facts the question for consideration whether the Barh Court has jurisdiction to entertain the compalint. However, from the facts it is apparent that most part of the occurrence took place at Nalanda but some part of the occurrence has occurred at Barh as apparent in the complaint petition itself. 6. However, Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. mentions that ordinarily every offence shall be enquired into and tried by the Court under whose local jurisdiction the act has been committed. However, the word “ordinarily” used in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C is a general one must be read subject to special provision of code i.e. the exceptions 4 enshrined in Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C. The exceptions in Section 178 of the Cr. P. C which defines where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or when an offence is continuing in one and continues to be committed in more local area than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local area then it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area and further Section 179 of the Cr.P.C provides that the offence can also be triable where the consequence of the offence ensues. 7. Hence reverted back to the fact having ascertained the legal position there is allegation in the complaint that some part of occurrence took place at Barh and lower court the exception of Section 178 and hence part of cause of action having occurred in the jurisdiction of Barh and hence Barh court have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision 2008 (3) PLJR 367 however, in facts and circumstances of the case reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 367 to that the entire cause of action allegedly accrued within 5 the jurisdiction of the Court where the complainant was residing with her husband and in-laws and no part thereof was accrued at parental house and in that circumstance it was held that offence could not be tried at a place under the jurisdiction of the Court in which the parental house of victim falls i.e. where the cause of action has not accrued at all. However, under the facts and circumstance of the case at hand the part of the cause of action has been alleged to have occurred in the jurisdiction of Barh where the cognizance has been taken and hence the ratio decided in case reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 367 is not applicable to the fact and circumstance of the case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further placed reliance upon decision reported in 2004(8) SCC 100. There also the same interpretation has been made that Section 177 provides enquiry or trial ordinarily where the occurrence took place. However, this rule is subject to several exceptions as mentioned in Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C and Section 177 must be read with subject to the special provision contained in Section 178 and 179 and in this facts and circumstances there is no allegation or whisper about any offence having committed at a place 6 cognizance was taken and hence hold that the concerned Court has no jurisdiction. However, the facts and circumstance at hand is quite contrary where the part of the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at Barh and hence decision reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 is not applicable. The decision reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 950, however, instead of helping the petitioner, is against him as in this case offence regarding the demand of dowry and torture case instituted at Begusarai Court (parental home) while matrimonial home is at Khagaria and the cause of action stated to have occurred both with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Begusarai and Khagaria and hence held that Begusarai had jurisdiction to entertain against the petitioner and having regard to the facts since part of occurrence alleged to have been taken place at Barh and hence, the Barh Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and hence the petition is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)