IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56632 of 2006 RABINDRA CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None. _________ O R D E R The four petitioners herein who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.111 of 2003 have prayed for the quashing of the entire proceeding as also the order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachhia, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 498 A I.P.C. and 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant, Puja Devi, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint on 21.4.2003 in respect of occurrences which took place on 7.4.2003 and 11.4.2003. It is stated that the complainant was married to Shekhar Kumar, son of petitioner no.1, on 13.12.2002 and sufficient gifts were given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial home and lived with her husband and the accused persons where she was extended proper respect, dignity and cordiality for the first five or six days but thereafter she was subjected to torture. She was abused and kept without food. A demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by the accused persons which the complainant was asked to bring from her father, failing which she would be killed and ,in fact, the accused - 2 - persons conspired to kill her and in consequences thereof her husband took her towards the forest in the depth of night wherefrom she managed to escape. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Sanjeev Choudhary , the brother of the complainant , who apart from being a veteran kidnapper was also an accused in Bounsi P.S. Case no.15 of 2004 under Section 364 I.P.C. It has also been submitted that the allegations are omnibus and general in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed to any of the petitioners. It is also stated that a perusal of the story as propounded in the complaint would reveal it to be a concocted one for no person would be able to accept the story that has been unfounded. The demand for dowry has also been denied and it is the complainant who does not want to live with her in-laws as she being the daughter-in-law has to serve all the four accused inasmuch as the mother-in-law was a cancer patient and was under treatment of Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and there is no other female member in the house. It has also been submitted that the complainant had gone to her Naihar with an assurance that she would return after 15 days , but the in stead of doing so she filed false and concocted case and the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without considering any factual aspect . The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that a civil suit being no. 151 of 2003 has been filed before the Family Court - 3 - at Rourkela by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which is still pending. It has further been submitted that the entire alleged occurrence took place at Rourkela but the present case has been filed at Naugachhia where it is not maintainable being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the place where the cause of action took place, and as such, the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance being bad in law was not maintainable. Admittedly, as per the complaint petition, after the marriage the complainant went to live with her husband at Rourkela and it was there that she was subjected to torture and the demand for additional dowry was made. Therefore, it is apparent that the entire cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Rourkela and no part thereof occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Naugachhia. In the instant case, admittedly, the alleged demand for dowry was made at Rourkela and no part thereof took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Naugachhia . Even otherwise the complainant had left her matrimonial home with an assurance to come back after fifteen days which gives an impression not of her being subjected to any torture and she was still ready to come to her matrimonial home but instead of returning she filed a complaint petition while in her parental home. It is by now well settled that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with any enquiry or trial in respect of a case - 4 - involving cause of action not having taken place within his territorial jurisdiction .The fact is that the cause of action did not arise at any place other then Rourkela . The court at Naugachhia had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. In the circumstances discussed above, the court at Naugachhia having no jurisdiction to inquire or try the case , the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner has to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction . Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned is quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 26th August,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.