Criminal Miscellaneous No.7635 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- 1. Basisth Mandal, Son of Late Jahru Mandal 2. Ganga Devi Wife of Basisth Mandal 3. Bindu Devi Daughter of Basisth Mandal 4. Dilip Mandal 5. Chandan Mandal 6. Rajesh Mandal , All sons of Basisth Mandal 7. Nisha Devi Wife of Bindeshwari Mandal 8. Bindeshwari Mandal, Son of Triloki Mandal 9. Rina Devi 10. Sandhya Devi , daughters of Basisth Mandal, All residents of Village-Kishanpur, P.S. Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur 11. Hardeo Mandal, Son of Rupan Mandal 12. Rupan Mandal, Son of Late Roshan Mandal, Both residents of village- Sahpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur 13. Govind Mandal, Son of Late Gainu Mandal 14. Chamni Devi Wife of Govind Mandal 15. Sadhana Devi 16. Rambha Devi 17. Anita Devi , Daughters of Govind Mandal 18. Mritunjay Kumar, Son of Govind Mandal, All residents of Village- Bhualpur, P.S. Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur --------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mahesh Mandal, Son of Late Dhaneshwar Mandal, resident of Village- Nadiya Tola, P.S. Bariarpur , District-Munger ----------- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioners: Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No.2, A.P.P ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The petitioners, eighteen in number, have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 11.1.1999 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Judicial 2 Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.520C of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 494,406,504,120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts of the case is that the complainant-Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, disclosing therein that his marriage was solemnized with Bindu Devi ( petitioner no.3) on 17.2.1997 in the premises of Baba Mansu Kamna Nath, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. After solemnization of the marriage petitioner no.3 lived with the complainant at Nadia Tola, Bariarpur, which is in the district of Munger. It was alleged in the complaint petition that subsequently on 5.6.1997, the accused Dilip Mandal (petitioner no.4) performed vidagiri of his sister and while going, the wife of the complainant went along with all ornaments and clothes. It was further alleged that petitioner no.1 (accused Basisth Mandal) sent a message through accused Dilip Mandal (petitioner no.4) and called the complainant in the house of accused Nisha Devi (petitioner no.7) who was resident of Bhagalpur . In the house of Nisha Devi , accused persons misbehaved with the complainant and he was also abused and thereafter on 21.7.1997, though petitioner no.3 was married wife of the complainant, she was got married with accused Hardeo Mandal ( petitioner no.11) and all ornaments , clothes and the amount, which were given 3 by the complainant, were forcibly taken over by the accused persons. On these allegations, the complaint petition was filed. He was examined on S.A. and in supported of the complaint case three witnesses were also examined. Learned Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 11.1.1999 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 494,406,504,120B of the Indian Penal Code which order has been impugned in the present proceeding. 3. Sri Umakant Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his argument to the point of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Judicial Magistrate, Munger by way of referring to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in view of the said provision ordinarily trial is to proceed within the local jurisdiction of a court. He submits that as per the allegation made in the entire complaint petition, all the offences alleged to have been committed was committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Bhagalpur and, as such, the learned Magistrate, Munger Court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and proceed therewith and one this sole ground he has made a prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance . 4. Sri Binod Kumar No.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. While referring to Section 462 of 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure, he submits that on the ground of jurisdictional error no Judgment or order of a court can be set aside unless it is satisfied that miscarriage of justice has occurred. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submits that it is not a case in which it can be said that miscarriage of justice has occurred. He further submits that at the initial stage, the order of cognizance may not be interfered with while exercising of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the petitioners have not made out a case in the category of exceptional and rarest of rare cases and, as such, this Court may refrain from interfering with order of cognizance. 6. I have also examined the materials available on the record and contents of the complaint petition. I am of the view that on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, order of cognizance in the present case is not required to be interfered with by this Court particularly, in view of provisions contained in Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Moreover, if the petitioners are in a position to establish that the entire cause of action in the present case has arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhagalpur, even then there are other provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting the proceeding/trial transferred to a 5 court of competent jurisdiction. In any even this Court on this ground may not quash the order of cognizance. Moreover, I do not find that the petitioners have made out a case to bring the present case in the category of exceptional and rarest of rare cases and in that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to interfere into the matter and, accordingly the petition stands rejected. 7. This case was admitted by order dated 1.9.1999 passed by this Court and while admitting this case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of the case, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.520C of 1998 in the court below shall remain stayed. 8. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the order of stay dated 1.9.1999 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 12th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )