IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9870 of 2008 1. Intekhab Alam @ Babar Ali, Son of Zakir Hussein. 2. Md. Zakir Hussein, S/o. Late Md. Suleman. 3. Rehana Khatoon @ Zarina Khatoon, W/o. Md. Zakir Hussein 4. Nishat Alam @ Ambar, S/o. Md. Zakir Hussein 5. Naquib Alam @ Naquib @ Photo, S/o. Md. Zakir Hussein. 6. Md. Iftekhar @ Lucky, S/o. Md. Zakir Hussein. All are resident of village – Bhagwatipur, P.O. Bharwara, P.S. Singhwara, District – Darbhagna ………….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gulnaz Bano, D/o. Late Dr. Md. Zafar Alam Sakir, R/o. vill. Nazeerpur, P.O. – Kanta, Piraucha, P.S. – Gaighat, District – Muzaffarpur. ……………… Opp. Parties. ----------- 02/ 19.05.2010 This is an application for quashing the order dated 04.12.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 2518 of 2007 by the S.D.J.M (East) Muzaffarpur, by which he has taken cognizance for offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition by the informant is that the marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2006 and Rs.51,786/- was fixed as Dain Mehr and three lacs were given for purchasing a land in the name of the victim wife at Muzaffarpur and though the land was purchased but in the name of accused no. 2. It has further been alleged that after marriage the victim was taken to Gujarat and there at Gujarat she was subjected to cruelty by abuse and assault and 2 even breaking the teeth and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty by which the complainant fell ill then she was brought to Muzaffarpur and left at the Muzaffarpur railway station and there the brother of the victim wife living at Muzaffarpur brought her who got her treated at Muzaffarpur. It is further alleged that on 18.10.2007 the accused persons came to the Naihar of the complainant and when they were persuaded to take the victim, they refused to take her and put demands and refused to take her till the demand is fulfilled. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the allegation about subjecting cruelty is at Gujarat whereas no allegation about subjecting cruelty has been alleged at Muzaffarpur and hence Muzaffapur Court has no jurisdiction and has relied upon decision reported in 2007(4) PLJR 528 (Dipanker Dutt Gupta & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), 2004 (8) SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) 2007 (3) PLJR 269 (Suresh Das Harijan Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.). It has further been contended that the cognizance has been taken without due application of mind. Having regard to the allegation that after marriage she was taken to Gujarat she was subjected to cruelty and when she got ill, she was 3 brought to Muzaffarpur and left at Muzaffarpur railway station in her illness and from there she went to the Naihar where she was treated. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentions that every offence shall be enquired ordinarily within the local jurisdiction the act was committed. However, this is the general rule as enshrined in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. However, the said rule is subject to several exceptions and the exceptions are in Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C. Section 178 of the Cr.P.C also mentions that if offence committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local area than one, however, several acts done in different local area then it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. Further Section 179 of the Cr.P.C mentions that when an act has been done and consequence which has ensued, the offence may be enquired into and tried by a court within the local jurisdiction of such offence has been done or such consequence ensued. However, having regard to the allegation that she was subjected to cruelty at Gujarat and thereafter she got ill and when she became seriously ill then she was brought to 4 Muzaffarpur and left at Muzaffarpur by the accused no. 6 and further the accused persons came on 18.10.2007 at the Naihar and when prayer was made to take her to matrimonial house then they refused and started demanding car and hence it indicates that she was subjected to cruelty and brought in injured stage at Muzaffarpur and left there and she was treated at Muzaffarpur and hence the allegation attracts Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C. When there is allegation that she was brought to Muzaffarpur and left at the Muzaffarpur station in stage of illness due to subjecting her to cruelty and where she was treated and hence it can well be inferred that the part of the occurrence and the consequence of subjecting cruelty as ensued at Muzaffarpur and hence the Muzaffarpur Court has jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision reported in 2007(4) PLJR 528 (Dipanker Dutt Gupta & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and submitted that the facts and circumstances such where no part of the occurrence took place at Patna and the allegation made about the subjecting cruelty has taken place at Calcutta and hence it was held that since none of the occurrence or cause of action has arisen at Patna and hence Patna Court has no jurisdiction. 5 However, the facts and circumstances reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 528 (Dipanker Dutt Gupta & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) is not applicable as the part of the cause of action and the consequence has ensured at Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, relied upon decision 2004(8) SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.), however, in this case it has been held that under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C the ordinary place of inquiry and trial is within the local jurisdiction the act has been committed but this is a general rule and is subject to several exceptions and some of the exceptions are 178 of the Cr.P.C. However, taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of the case that all the offence alleged to have taken place at a place N and no part of cause of action arose at place C and hence the Magistrate at place C has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and hence on the facts of the case at hand is distinguishable and hence not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. However, in decision reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 269 (Suresh Das Harijan Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) also there is fact that the occurrence took place in territorial jurisdiction 6 beyond the Court which took the cognizance and held that the case falls squarely under Section 177 Cr.P.C for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction and not under Section 178 or 179 of the Cr.P.C , however, the facts and circumstances at hand as stated and discussed above falls under Section 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C and hence the decision relied upon 2007 (3) PLJR 269 (Suresh Das Harijan Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the learned Magistrate has not applied its mind, however, it may be mentioned that it is a well settled principle that the cognizance is taken of the offence and in a complaint case when a complaint is filed the Magistrate applied its mind and decide to proceed with the case then the cognizance is said to have been taken and then he proceeded to take the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. The cognizance is said to have been taken when Magistrate proceed to take statement under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C of the complainant and his witnesses. However, for issuing process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C the Magistrate has only to form an opinion on the material available on record. However, if he chooses to discharge the accused under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C then he 7 is required to give reason but at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C he is not required to give reason. From the perusal of the statement of the complainant on oath and the witnesses prima facie case is made out against the accused persons and hence it is apparent that he applied its mind to the statement of complainant and witnesses on oath and formed his opinion for issuing process. As apparent from the order that he ordered for issuing process and hence I do not find any illegality in the impugned order to interfere with. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 2372 (Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs. The State of Maharashtra), 1995 (6) SCC 142 (Anil Saran Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) however, these cases are regarding the taking cognizance and it was held that the cognizance is taken of the offence and the moment the Magistrate applied its mind for proceeding in a case, cognizance is said to have been taken and hence these cases are of no help to the petitioners and hence having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and hence, it is accordingly dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)