IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15896 of 2008 1. Anil Kumar Choudhary, son of Ram Prakash Choudhary. 2. Ram Prakash Choudhary, son of Late Babu Lal Choudhary. 3. Satyabhama Choudhary, wife of Ram Prakash Choudhary. 4. Ashok Kumar Choudhary alias Ashok Choudhary, son of Ram Prakash Choudhary. 5. Usha Choudhary, daughter of Ram Prakash Choudhary. All residents of Alu Babu More, infront of Guha Medical Shop, P.O. Leap Town, P.S. Babu Para, Siliguri, District- Darjeeling (West Bengal). …………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Anita Kumari alias Anita Chodhary, wife of Anil Kumar Choudhary, resident of Alu Babu More, infront of Guha Medical Shop, P.O. Leap Town, P.S. Babu Para, Siligori, District-Darjeeling (West Bengal), original resident of Bishunpur, P.S. Town, District- Begusarai. …………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Jai Prakash Singh & Pankaj Kumar Das, Advocates. --------------------------------- O R D E R 8. 6.9.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred against the order dated 25.2.2008 passed in Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.30 of 2 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In brief, the fact, leading to this application, is that on the basis of the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2, Anita Kumari alias Anita Choudhary, as sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, for investigation and submitting the final form, Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.30 of 2007 was registered on 29.1.2007 under Sections 406, 379, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused-petitioners. The Police on investigation submitted the final form finding the case untrue in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The Chief Judicial Magistrate on hearing the informant-opposite party no.2 on her protest petition dated 28.1.2008 and perusing the case diary took the cognizance of the offence under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused-petitioners, which is impugned before this Court. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that opposite party no.2 has filed this case falsely only with a view to harass the accused- petitioners and Matrimonial Suit No.223 of 2007 for divorce filed by the petitioner no.1, Anil Kumar Choudhary against opposite party no.2, has been decreed vide judgment dated 18.12.2010 by the court of District Judge, Darjeeling. It is also submitted that the occurrence is said to be of district- Darjeeling, as such, the cognizance order is bad in law having the lack of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2010 passed by the District Judge, Darjeeling, in Matrimonial Suit No.223 of 2007 and the Matrimonial Suit for divorce had been filed on 28.12.2007 after filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that in spite of the order dated 22.10.2009 of the District Judge, Darjeeling, in Misc. Case No.18 of 2009 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1000/- forthwith to the opposite party no.2 and the arrears since January to September, 2009 in three equal installments and also to pay the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner no.1 did not 4 comply the same and due to that reason, opposite party no.2 was unable to afford the expanses of the litigation of the Matrimonial Suit, as such, the suit was decided ex-parte in absence of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 further submits that the demand was also made at the Maika of the opposite party no.2 in the district of Begusarai as detailed in paragraph-6 of the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R. As such the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, was fully competent to take cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections against the accused-petitioners. 5. On perusal of the record, it appears that the complaint petition of opposite party no.2, numbered as Complaint Petition No.2506(C) of 2006, which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, for investigation and submitting final form, is of prior to the filing of the divorce suit by the petitioner no.1 at Darjeeling. As such, on the basis of the filing of the suit later on after filing of the complaint case by the opposite party no.2, is not a ground to hold that the cognizance order is misuse of the process of the Court. As far as the lack of territorial 5 jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, is concerned, it is clearly stated in paragraph-6 of the complaint petition that the demand of Rs.3,00,000/- was also repeated by the petitioner no.1 in Village-Bishunpur, the Maika of opposite party no.2, in the District of Begusarai, continuing the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, was fully competent to take the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections against the accused-petitioners. 6. Keeping in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is nothing in the impugned order showing the abuse of the process of the court for interference with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)