IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42516 of 2007 1. RAM KUMAR PANDIT SON OF LATE BABU LAL PANDIT 2. JAGDISH PANDIT SON OF LATE BABU LAL PANDIT 3. KALSI DEVI @ NAROCHCHWALI W/O LATE BABU LAL PANDIT 4. BANARSI DEVI W/O JAGDISH BHAGAT 5. PARIKSHAN PANDIT S/O LATE BABU LAL PANDIT ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAMADA TOLA (ISHLAMIYA), P.S.- BENIPATTI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. RAM KALI DEVI W/O RAM KUMAR PANDIT OF VILLAGE- SAMADA TOLA (ISHLAMI8YA), P.S.- BENIPATTI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE- PARHETA, P.S- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr.Suraj Pd. Singh, APP --------------------- 4 16/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. C-322 of 2007 whereby and whereunder cognizance for the offences under Sections 498 A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against them. It appears that revision application preferred by the petitioners against the cognizance order has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi on 25.7.2007 in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2007. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no part of occurrence has occurred in the district of Sitamarhi. So the Court at Sitamarhi had no jurisdiction at all to take cognizance and the learned Court below has erred in taking cognizance and passed the impugned order without any jurisdiction. The order is bad because the Court taking cognizance had no territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 367 SC (Bhura Ram & Ors. Versus The State of Rajasthan and Another). It appears that the complaint was filed by Ram Kali Devi alleging therein that she was married with petitioner no. 1 Ram Kumar Pandit about six and half years prior to the filing of the complaint which was filed in the year 2007. She alleged that since the time of marriage the accused persons were continuously raising demand of rupees one lac and a motorcycle by way of additional dowry. The demand of dowry could not be fulfilled so all the accused persons conspired among themselves and committed various sorts of torture upon her. She had no issue so she was branded as BANJH. Ultimately her husband performed another marriage with a lady and the accused persons tried to burn her. Therefore, she had to take shelter in her parents house. 3 In course of inquiry the complainant and the witnesses were examined and accordingly cognizance was taken. Regarding territorial jurisdiction it has been submitted that it is an important question of law and the Court is only competent to try the case in whose jurisdiction the same has occurred. If an offence is committed beyond its jurisdiction then the Court is not competent to try such case and on this score alone the impugned order is bad. I have perused the complaint petition. The complaint petition mentions that since the time of marriage the demand of dowry was being made. The marriage was performed in the district of Sitamarhi where the cognizance has been taken. After the complainant was forced to leave the house of her husband then she had to take shelter in the house of her parents at Sitamarhi and she had to bear the agony of her torture. From the facts available in the complaint it is apparent that the demand of dowry was being made in the district of Sitamarhi so the Courts at Sitamarhi had jurisdiction to take cognizance. Accordingly, on the point of territorial jurisdiction the order is correct. Another important fact of this case is that the order taking cognizance which was challenged here was 4 earlier challenged by the petitioners before the revisional Court where the revision application was dismissed. Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars revision by the same party. Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being reproduced below:- “If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” The Code of Criminal Procedure bars the second revision and it has been held in AIR 1981 SC 1697 (Asghar Khan V. The State of Uttar Pradesh) that the Sessions Judge and High Court having concurrent powers, second revision would not be competent under Section 397 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 (Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Others Versus State of Maharashtra and Another) and it has been submitted that the powers given to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is absolute power and this Court is competent to pass any order in the interest of justice. No doubt an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be passed in the interest of justice if a situation so 5 warrants. In extra ordinary situation this power can definitely be exercised but when there is special power under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure then the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code has to be judged considering the restraint mandate of Section 397 (3) of the Code. In the present case on the facts it does not appear that any such mistake has occurred which needs rectification by invoking the jurisdiction and exercising power under Section 482 of the Code. In the result, this application is held to be without merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. Avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)