IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16378 of 2005 SMT. DURGA JHA @ DURGA JHA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR and anr. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate For the State: Dr Mayanand Jha, APP For the Complainant: Mr. Indradeo Pd. --------- 9 16.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the state and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.3.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in Chhatauni P.S. case no. 65/04 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 498A, 323, 406 and 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Shortly stated the prosecution story is that the marriage between the informant/opposite party no.2 and son of the petitioner Nilay Jha had taken place on 9.5.2002 at Motihari and at the time of marriage her parents had given several presentations. After marriage the informant came to Ranchi and began to live there with her husband. Since the month of September, 2002 accused began to torture her for dowry. She was badly treated by accused persons. At times she was also assaulted. The dowry demand was made at Motihari also. On the basis of application filed by opposite party no.2 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran a complaint case was registered as Complaint Case no. 1458©/04 and a copy of the same was sent to the concerned police station for registration and investigation, on the basis of which the present case i.e. Chhatauni P.S.case no. 65/04 dated 9.9.04 was registered. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 4.3.2005 took cognizance against the petitioners accused under sections 498A, 323, 406 and 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the said order of cognizance the petitioners have preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. It has been argued that the entire occurrence took place at Ranchi. The court at Motihari therefore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It has further been argued that the husband filed divorce case on 24.2.2004 at Ranchi, the notice of which was issued on 17.3.2004 and thereafter opposite party no.2 filed the present complaint on 12.8.2004 at Motihari with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the court at Motihari has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this connection he referred to paragraphs 6 and 10 of the complaint petition and submitted that it is a case of continuing offence. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 30 given in the 3 case of Sujata Mukherjee (SMT) vrs Prashant Kumar Mukherjee. Learned counsel for the State also supported the impugned order. In the complaint petition there is also allegation that the accused came to Motihari and demanded money in the shape of dowry. Therefore, the complaint petition reveals a continuing offence of demand of dowry. In face of allegation, in my view, clause (b) and © of Section 178 Cr.P.C. are attracted. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 supports his argument. It is a matter between the wife and husband and his family members. The question that the present case has been filed with a view to take revenge from the husband and his family members cannot be answered at this stage. The police investigated the case and after finding the same to be true submitted charge sheet. The impugned order indicates that the learned Magistrate also found a prima facie case and took cognizance against the accused persons. At this stage, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their grievance before the court below at the appropriate stage of the case. Al (M.Saran,J)