IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45635 of 2007 1. Manoj Kumar, Son of Upendra Nath Singh 2. Upendra Nath Singh, Son of Late Bhagirathi Singh 3. Sushila Devi, Wife of Upendra Nath Singh All residents of Village- Paraiya Khurd, Post Office & Police Station –Paraiya, District-Gaya, at Present Sagar Bhawan, Telidih Road Chas, District-Bokaro, State-Jharkhand ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Deorani Kumari @ Malti Devi, Daughter of Suridh Kumar Singh, Wife of Manoj Kumar , resident of Village- Paraiya Khurd, Post Office & Police Station- Paraiya, District-Gaya, at present –Gram- Jankop, Police Office-Jogiya, Police Station-Barun, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) ---------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Bindhyachal Singh, and Umesh Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ----------- O R D E R The three petitioners, who respectively are the husband and the parents in-law of the complainant of Complaint Case no.700 of 2006, have filed this application for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 26.2.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A and 379 I.P.C. against the petitioners and has directed for issuance of summons to the accused for their appearance. Deorani Kumari @ Malti Devi filed the aforesaid complaint on 11.9.2006 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 323,504, 379 and 313 I.P.C. as also Sections 3 / 4 - 2 - of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the hands of the petitioners from 2 -4 days from 9.5.1997 till the time of filing of the complaint. According to the complainant, her marriage with petitioner no.1, Manoj Kumar , was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 9.5.1997 at her residence in Village-Jankop, Police Station -Barun in the district of Aurangabad , whereafter she went to her matrimonial home in Bokaro Steel City , where her father-in-law was employed. It is alleged that 2-4 days after the marriage, she was informed by her husband of not having been provided dowry commensurate with his position and since her father, being a teacher, was an affluent person and has sufficient earnings, he ought to have provided him with a Maruti car and instead had provided him with funds for purchasing a motorcycle and, accordingly, told her to get a Maruti car from her father. It is also alleged that her parents in-law sang identical tunes of not having received sufficient dowry notwithstanding the affluent status of her father, as a reason whereof they had fallen in social status. They also reiterated the demand made by her husband. It is alleged that when the complainant remonstrated against such demand, the three petitioners resorted to abusing and assaulting her and also castigated her father as a miser and a fraud. The complainant is said to have communicated the developments to her parents and other family members, who were surprised in view of the fact that more than sufficient dowry including a television set and refrigerator had been provided. They also advised her to bear with the situation as the situation would normalize in due course. However, her abject torture for non- fulfilment of the dowry demand continued and apart from being abused - 3 - ,she was also assaulted with slaps and fists and these developments were communicated by her to her parents. It is further alleged that some three years back when on the occasion of the marriage of her brother, she with her husband came to her parental home, her husband in presence of the invitees and relatives as also the co-villagers made a demand for a Maruti car from her father and also threatened that unless the demand was met, she would not be permitted to enter the matrimonial home. He also criticized them for not having acceded to his demand for all this period. The further allegation is that around this time her parents in- law raised another issue inasmuch as they proposed another marriage for their son since the dowry demand had not been met and the complainant had not been blessed with a child for all this long period. The husband agreed with his parents and when she objected to the same, the petitioners started abusing her , her parents and her brother in filthy language and also threatened to oust her from the matrimonial home. It is also alleged that in the year 1999 when she had conceived, her husband had forcibly terminated her pregnancy. It is said that her father, brother and Mama (maternal uncle) on receiving intimation from her had visited the petitioners several times at Bokaro Steel City and had pleaded with the accused to keep the complainant with dignity since he had already spent much beyond his means at the marriage and not to torture her for dowry. On one such visit to Bokaro on 3.7.2006 her father and Mama were abused and were also threatened with assault and they were requested to take away the complainant . It is said that when - 4 - the complainant objected to the use of indecent language , her husband assaulted her with slaps and fists in presence of her father and Mama and her mother-in-law catching her hair threw her on the ground. She was reportedly saved from further assault by her father and Mama. Then again on 6.9.2006 she was assaulted and abused by her husband who again reiterated his demand for the Maruti car and on failure to provide the same asked her to leave the house and also threatened to enter into a second marriage. When the complainant attempted to come out of the house ,all her belongings including her clothes and ornaments worth Rs.1,20,000/- were seized by the petitioners and she was ousted from the matrimonial home. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent, have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in this case. It was also submitted that the learned Magistrate had erred in law in taking cognizance since all the occurrence of alleged assault and subjecting the complainant to cruelty took place outside his territorial jurisdiction as Bokaro Steel City , where all the alleged occurrences took place does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Aurangabad . Opp.Party no.2 has appeared to contest the case and although no show cause or written statement has been filed oral submissions were advanced on her behalf to justify the impugned order. Admittedly, as per the allegations in the complaint petition the demand for dowry in the form of a Maruti car was made at the matrimonial home of the complainant and even the assault and cruelty - 5 - that she was subjected to took place in her matrimonial home at Bokaro, save and except the occasion when the demand for the Maruti car use of abusive language and threats were reiterated by her husband on the occasion of the marriage of her brother at her parental home in presence of several persons. From the above, it would appear that although the initial demand for dowry was made at Bokaro Steel City, the demand with abusive language was also reiterated at village-Jankop in the district of Aurangabad. In that view of the matter, whereas the main part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Bokaro , one portion of the cause of action also took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad court and in that view of the matter it is the provisions of Section 178 Cr.P.C. which would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and not Section 177 Cr.P.C. Having applied the provisions of Section 178 Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that the court at Aurangabad did have the jurisdiction to try this case. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha, J.) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 29th July,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.