IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37771 of 2008 1. Gopal Prasad Gupta @ Amrendra Kumar Gupta, son of Madan Prasad Gupta, 2. Madan Prasad Gupta @ Madan Sah, son of Late Jaldhari Sah, 3. Meena Devi, wife of Sri Madan Pd. Gupta, 4. Mithlesh Prasad Gupta, son of Madan Prasad Gupta, 5. Sulekha Kumari, daughter of Madan Prasad Gupta,, all of village Phan go, PS Chautham, District Khagaria. 6. Anjani Kumar Gupta, son of Harish Chandra Sah, village Sahpur, PS Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. 7. Juli Kumari @ Juli Devi, daughter of Madan Pd. Gupta, wife of Jiwan Kumar @ Babloo, resident of Saharsa, PS & Dist. Saharsa. 8. Sangeeta Devi, daughter of Madan Pd. Gupta, wife of Anjali Kumar, village Shahpur, PS Raj Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. 9. Deoyendi Devi @ Deobanti Devi, daughter of Madan Pd. Gupta, wife of Jogendra Sah, village Kadhaiya, PS Sore Bazar, Dist. Saharsa. 10. Prabha Devi, daughter of Madan Prasad Gupta, wife of Dileep Sah, village Sakrol, PS Beldor, District Khagaria. 11. Sunita Devi, daughter of Madan Pd. Gupta, wife of Raj Kumar, Mohalla Saharsa, PS and District Saharsa – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Reena Devi, wife of Gopal Prasad Gupta @ Amrendra Kumar Gupta, daughter of Subol Sah, village Phango, PS Chautham, district Khagaria, presently residing at village Sirsha, PS Mufassil Katihar, Dist. Katihar – Opp. Parties. 2 5.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 23.2.2007 taking cognizance passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1887/2006, on the ground that it does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Katihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence has taken place in Khagaria and as such the court at Katihar has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the petitioners. The question of jurisdiction will be considered by the court at the appropriate stage, that is, at the stage of enquiry and trial. The court may consider this aspect at the time of framing of charges 2 and if it is found that the case does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Katihar, the complainant/informant would have the option to get the case transferred to the appropriate court. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)