IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.411 of 2008 MD.NESAR KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 8.12.2008 This revision has been preferred against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge- 3rd, Barh in Sessions Trial No. 271/07 arising out of Asthawan P.S.case No. 186/95 registered under Sections 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for both parties. The short facts of the case are as follows; the victim, Sabana Khatoon was the second wife of the petitioner, Md. Nesar Khan. She died as a result of burn injury. Asthawan P.S.case No.186/95 was registered under Section 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of statement made by the victim/deceased herself in which she specifically alleged about causing burn injuries to her by her Sautan in conspiracy with this petitioner for dowry demand etc. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. Much after lodging of Asthawan P.S.No. 186/95 this petitioner filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 303©/95 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh against father, mother, sisters, brother-in-law and others of the victim under Section 302/34 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. After inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance was taken against them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Asthawan P.S.case No. 186/95 was transferred to Barh at - 2 - the instance of this petitioner to be heard along with the complaint case. After commitment both cases were amalgamated for trial. IN course of that two discharge petitions under Section227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed; one by two accused of the complaint case, namely, Md. Kamal Khan and Nanhoo Khan and other by this petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing and perusing the materials allowed the petition of Md. Kamal Khan and Nanhoo Khan and rejected the petition of this petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of discharge of Md. Kamal Khan and Nanhoo as well as rejection of his petition filed for discharge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of lower court is perverse and bad in law. There are sufficient materials for framing of charge against Md.Kamal Khan and Nanhoo. The order of rejection of the petition filed by this petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been challenged mainly on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that place of occurrence of Asthawan P.S.case No. 186/95 falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Nalanda district and not in Barh sub- division. Learned counsel for Opposite party brough notice of this Court that Asthawan P.S.case has been transferred from Nalanda district to Barh at the instance of this petitioner by this Hon”ble Court. This fact has also been admitted by the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, so - 3 - far it concerns to this regard. So far the discharge of Md. Kamal Khan and Nanhoo is concerned, on perusal of the complaint petition, material evidence adduced under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the facts and circumstances of the case it would appear that the lower court has rightly discharged these two accused persons. There is no specific allegation against them either in the complaint petition or in the evidence. Apart from it, circumstances would also go to show that the complaint case was filed by this petitioner in retaliation and in order to save his own skin. In view of above submission and the allegation levelled in the complaint petition I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this petition is hereby rejected. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)