IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No. 9691 of 2009 NAVEEN SHARMA, Son of Bashistha Narayan Sharma, resident of Mohalla – West Anandpuri, House No. 12/D/7 Boring Canal Road, P.S. Sri Krishnapur, District – Patna at present working as Area Manager in Idea Communication, Pune. ....................... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mridula Sharma, Daughter of Jitendra Prasad Singh, Resident of SANDHA MATHIYA, P.S. – MUFFASIL, District – Saran. ......................... Opp. Parties. With Cr. Misc. No. 5616 of 2009 1. BASHISTHA NARAYAN SHARMA, S/o. Late Sukhdev Rai Sharma, Resident of Mohalla West Anandpuri, House No. 12/D/7, Boring Canal Road, P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District – Patna at present working as Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Patna. 2. Raj Kishori Sharma @ Raj Kumari Sharma, wife of Bashistha Narayan Sharma, Resident of Mohalla – West Anandpuri, House No. 12/D/7, Boring Canal Road, P.S. – Sri Krishnapuri, District – Patna. .............................. Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ........................... Opp. Party. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. D. N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. :- Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. 06/ 12.01.2011 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran by which cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 498A and 323/34 of the Indian 2 Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 248 of 2007, G. R. No. 2980 of 2007 as well as to quash the entire proceeding. The prosecution case as alleged that the informant went to Sasural and she was subjected to cruelty as was residing along with her husband at Jamshedpur and at Jamshedpur itself the demand of Rs.5,00000/- was made and she was subjected to cruelty thereafter her husband transferred to Ranchi at Ranchi there is allegation of subjecting to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of Rs.5,00000/- thereafter she was taking to Patna where at Patna there is also demand and subjecting to cruelty then she was taken to Chapra and thereafter on telephonic talk the husband came to Chapra and took to Ranchi and then she was took to Ranchi by his father-in-law and at Patna again she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and ultimately she was thrown out of the house and her father- in-law took her to Chapra by bus and dropped her at Chapra and went away and she anyhow managed to reach to his house. On the fardbeyan of the informant the FIR was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet submitted on 3 the basis of which cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, raise the single point and has submitted that from taking into consideration all the allegation of demand of dowry or illegal demand and subjecting to cruelty is within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur, Ranchi and Patna and no part of the occurrence for subjecting cruelty is alleged at Chapra and hence Chapra court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contend that in the complaint petition itself there is mention that she was subjected to cruelty through out and she was taken by her father-in-law to Chapra and she was dropped at Chapra and she anyhow managed to come to the Naihar in weeping condition and hence this itself shows that the part of the occurrence took place under the jurisdiction of Chapra and further since she was thrown out of the house by the husband and was taken to Chapra by her father-in-law the one of the accused and compelled to live her at Naihar under a mental agony and hence the consequence of the subjecting to cruelty has ensued at Chapra and under Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C and 4 hence Chapra court has jurisdiction and has placed reliance upon decision reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 47 (Surendra Nath Choubey & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), 2005 (4) PLJR 41 (Raja Ram Choudhary @ Raja Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and 1999 SC 3596 (Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr. It has further been contended that a police has jurisdiction to try the case and if the cognizance has been taken the case is not required to be quashed but utmost it can be a case for transferring the case from local jurisdiction to another local jurisdiction where the cause of action lies and hence submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing the case is not sustainable at all and moreover under the fact and circumstance, Chapra court has jurisdiction. Hence, on the rival contention of the parties the question for consideration is whether Chapra court has jurisdiction to take cognizance, case can continue at Chapra. However, having regard to the nature of the allegation it is apparent that as per the allegation a demand 5 of Rs.5,00000/- was made for the first time at Jamshedpur after the marriage and after the demand it permeated to subjecting to cruelty at Jamshedpur, Ranchi and Patna and ultimately as per the allegation in the complaint itself that she was thrown out from the house at Patna and his father- in-law took her to Chapra left her in weeping condition within the jurisdiction of Chapra court and after dropping her the accused flee away compelling her to go to Naihar under distress. However, the demand of dowry and subjecting to cruelty itself make out an offence and further there is allegation that she was thrown out of the house and in that state taken to Chapra by his father-in-law and dropped at Chapra and hence the moment she was taken to Chapra by one of the accuse father-in-law to Chapra by force and left there in such condition a part of occurrence will be said to have occurred at Chapra and further if the part of the occurrence occurred in the jurisdiction of Chapra then the Chapra court has jurisdiction. Taking the legal provision Section 177 of the Cr.P.C says that ordinarily the cognizance to be taken at a place where the occurrence took place but word ordinarily used Section 177 of the 6 Cr.P.C has been interpreted to be a general rule and the exception is at under Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C. Section 178 (b) mentions that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another then it may be inquired or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local area where even part of occurrence occurred and hence under Section 178 (b) Chapra court has jurisdiction. The further fact is that the victim was thrown out and was taken to Chapra and left at Chapra compelling her to go to her Naihar and in such fact and circumstance Section 179 of the Cr.P.C also come to the rescue of the complainant. Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. says that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. However, having regard to the subjecting to cruelty the victim was compelled to bring to Chapra and left there and she was compelled to go to her Naihar and hence a consequence can well be inferred to have ensued 7 at Chapra and hence Chapra court also has jurisdiction. Hence, taking into consideration these facts and circumstances and that since the part of the cause of action arose at Chapra and the consequence of the act alleged of cruelty ensues at Chapra and hence under Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C, Chapra court has jurisdiction. The decision relied upon in 2007 (2) PLJR 47 (Surendra Nath Choubey & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), 2005 (4) PLJR 41 (Raja Ram Choudhary @ Raja Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and 1999 SC 3596 (Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr. well supports the contention of the opposite party that court in whose jurisdiction part of occurrence or consequence ensued has also jurisdiction to take cognizance and hence the part of the occurrence took place at Chapra and the consequence ensued at Chapra then Chapra court has jurisdiction. Hence, the point raised by the petitioners falls to ground, hence I do not find any merit in this petition and hence the petition is hereby dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)