IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.116 of 2011 DAVESH KUMAR CHAURASIA @ DAVESH KUMAR SON OF RAM PRASAD CHAURASIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMANIA, P.S. JAMANIA, DISTRICT- GAZIPUR (U.P.) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR 3. NITU CHAURASIA, DAUGHTER OF BADRI PRASAD CHAURASIA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- NAWADA, P.S. ARA NAWADA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR ----------- 2 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the first information report vide Bhojpur Sadar Ara/Nawada P.S. Case No. 293 of 2010 registered for the alleged offence under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence alleged has been committed within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station and the offence, if any, has been committed at the place of the petitioner at Jamunia (Uttar Pradesh), and as such, the present F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the allegations made in the first information report has taken place at both the places i.e. at Jamunia (Uttar Pradesh), the place of the petitioner as also at Ara (Bihar), the Maika of the victim, and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. deserves to be dismissed. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the first information report, it appears that the demand of dowry apart from being made at matrimonial home of the victim has also been made at her Maika i.e. Ara, and as such, I do not find any material on basis of which the prayer for quashing the present F.I.R. can be allowed. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)