IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43957 of 2007 BHONU IDRISI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMINA KHATOON ----------- 4/ 12/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for O.P. No.2. A 13 year old marriage between the parties with three children born out of the wedlock turned sour leading to the institution of a complaint case under Sections- 498A and 406 of I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act in the form of Complaint Case No.49 (C)/06 in which cognizance was taken on 19.4.2006. The petitioner, who is the husband, questions the same. The ground urged is that reading the complaint as it is no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Bhabua to warrant maintainability of the same there. The marriage was solemnized at Bhabua. The allegations of harassment pertain to the matrimonial home at Mirzapur in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Reliance is placed on a judgement of the Supreme Court in 2004 (8) SCC 100 (ABRAHAM AJITH AND OTHERS Versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER). Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 finds it difficult to resist the submission with regard to the 2 factum of the alleged harassment being at the matrimonial home at Mirzapur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He, however, submits that the harassment meted out at Mirzapur persisted and the natural consequences of the harassment was the complainant having to come back to Kaimur at Bhabua. Because the harassment was the reason for her coming back to the matrimonial home, the cause of action continued from Mirzapur down to Kaimur at Bhabua. This Court finds it difficult to accept the submission. In the case of Abraham Ajith & Ors. (Supra) after consideration of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the issue of jurisdiction and the expression ‘cause of action’ arising out of a matter under Sections-498A and 406 of I.P.C. and 4 of D.P. Act, observing that the harassment had taken place at Nagercoil when the complainant came town to Chennai, it was held that the courts at Chennai had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in absence of any occurrence taking place at Chennai. The proceedings were therefore quashed. This Court finds no reason to arrive at any different conclusion in the present matter. This Court, in like terms orders the complaint to be returned to O.P. No.2 who, if she so 3 chooses, may file the same in appropriate court to be dealt with appropriately in accordance with law. The application stands allowed. The order of cognizance dated 19.4.2006 and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.49 (C)/06 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bhabua stands quashed, but with the limitation as incorporated above. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)