IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35054 of 2007 1. SIYARAM PRASAD @ SIYARAM SAH son of Late Ramcharitra Prasad, 2. Rajesh Kumar 3. Bhola Prasad @ Bhola Sah 4. Surapati Devi W/o Siyaram Prasad All resident of Mohalla- Patel Nagar, P.S. Sastri Nagar, District- Patna. 5. Kushum Devi W/O Umesh Prasad, resident of Village Prataptand, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt. Vaishali. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rinki Devi w/o Rajesh Kumar D/o Jawahar Prasad R/o Vill- Barachakiya (Subhash Chauk) P.S.- Chakiya, Distt.-East Champaran. . . . . . Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan-1, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocates, For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 8/ 03.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. On 03.10.2007 notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and in spite of notice opposite party no.2 as not appeared. On 29.10.2009 no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-3, East Champaran, Motihari whereby Cr. Revision No. 448 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, challenging the order taking cognizance has been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498 A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners submit that the police after investigation submitted final form in favour of the accused persons finding the case to be false. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have challenged both the - 2 - orders passed by the revisional court as well as order taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that no cause of action in the District of East Champraran has arisen, as such the proceeding of the case ought not to have proceeded in the District of East Champaran. From perusal of the prosecution case, it appears that the cause of occurrence took place at Patna. In view of the decisions referred to above in the case of Bhura Ram & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in PLJR 2008 (3) SC 367, as well as in the case of Y. Abraham Azith & Ors Vs. Inspector of Police Chennai & Another, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, no case would have proceeded in the District of East Champraran, where no cause of occurrence took place. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance dated 06.09.2005 passed in Chakia P.S. case no. 152 of 2002 as well as the revisional order dated 17.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-3, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Revision case no. 448 of 2005 lacks territorial jurisdiction, as such the same is set aside. However, the record of the case be transmitted to the appropriate Court at Patna from the Court at East Champaran wherein the proceeding will continue as per law. On receipt of record, the Court in seisin at Patna would give notice to all the parties as well. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) - 3 -