IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45080 of 2007 1. Md. Ayub, S/o Late Md. Halim. 2. Makrimunisa, W/o Md. Ayub. 3. Gaush Arshad Ali, S/o Md. Ayub. 4. Benajeer Bano @ Benazir, D/o Md. Ayub. 5. Nusrat Jahan Bano @ Nusrat, D/o Md. Ayub. 6. Gauss Zaffr Ayub @ Gauss Matiulla, S/o Md. Ayub. All R/o Arbind Nagar, P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. Naseem Ara @ Nazim, W/o Sahid Irfan, R/o Muhalla Hauj Rani, P.S. Hauj Rani, New Delhi. 8. Sameem Ara @ Samim, W/o Ataur Rahman, R/o Jayant Singrauli, P.S. Singrauli, Distt. Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh). ---------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Farah Arjmand Bano @ Mumtaj Bano, D/o Abu Sagir Ahmad, at present residing at Village Barka Gaon, Sah Tola, P.S. Bhagwanpur Haat, Distt. Siwan. --------- Opp. Parties ----------- 5 23.04.2010 Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The main challenge to the order taking cognizance is with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel would submit that from bare perusal of the complaint petition, it would be clear that no part of occurrence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Siwan district and in fact whatever has been alleged in the complaint petition, even if it be assumed to 2 be correct, that had taken place at the matrimonial home of the complainant opposite party no.2 i.e. in the village Isuwapur in the district of Siwan. Mr. Dronacharya would seriously controvert this fact and would submit that there are materials collected in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which would go to show that part of occurrence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Siwan. However, neither of the parties are in a position to produce the statement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, it would be difficult for this Court to go into this factual aspect. Nonetheless, as the law on the question stands settled in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004(8)SCC 100 holding that for offence under Section 498A, the demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting offence under Section 498A at a particular place would alone give cause of action for filing the 3 complaint petition, this Court instead of keeping the matter pending would remit the matter back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan to examine this question of jurisdiction in the light of the materials on record and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra). Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and it would be open for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan to decide and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 177 & 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as with regard to the aforesaid issue of jurisdiction. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)