IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.13218 of 2009 1. MD. ALTAF AHMAD TARIQUE 2. MD. MOKHTAR AHMAD SHAHEEN 3. MD. MASWOOD AHMAD 4. MD. AWSAR AHMAD @ MD. ABSHAR AHMAD @ BABLU 5. MD. IRSHAD AHMAD SONS OF MD. WASI AHMAD 6. MD. WASI AHMAD, SON OF LATE MD. ZAFIR AHMAD 7. SAMA SARSI, WIFE OF MD. ALTAF AHMAD 8. SHAHLA MOKHTAR, WIFE OF MD. MOKHTAR AHMAD ALL RESIDENTS OF QUARTER NO. 74, CROSS ROAD NO. 10, ZAKIR NAGAR POLICE STATION, AZAD NAGAQR, DISTRICT JAMSHEDPUR 832 110 (JHARKHAND) .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAJMA KHATOON @ SHAHNAZ, DAUGHTER OF LATE MD. MABIN & WIFE OF MD. ALTAF AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BACHHAUTA, P.S. MORKAHI, DISTRICT KHAGARIA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** For the petitioners .. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Adv. For the State .. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For opposite party no. 2. .. Mr. B.K. Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. **** /8/ 23.02.2011 This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 14.01.2009, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, in Complaint Case No. 335(C) of 2008 by 2 which processes has been issued against all accused persons after taking cognizance for offence under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint, by the complainant, Najma Khatoon, opposite party no. 2, alleging therein that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused no. 1, Altaf Ahmad, on 04.06.1998 and after marriage the complainant went to sasural at Jamshedpur and there is allegation that there was demand by accused no. 2 to 8 of Hero Hoda motorcycle, T.V. and rupees one lac cash and it was stated that if the marriage would have been solemnized at somewhere else they could have got more dowry and unless the demand is fulfilled she may not be permitted to live in the house. It is further alleged that after ten days, the complainant came to maike and disclosed the fact to his maike people. When after six months accused no. 1 did not come to take the victim then the father of the victim went to the accused persons and impressed that he will be arranging money to meet the demand and prayed for 3 keeping Najma Khatoon on which accused no. 1, Altaf Ahmad, specifically stated that unless the demand of Hero Honda motorcycle, T.V. and rupees one lac is satisfied, Najma Khatoon will not be taken to sasural and then the father of the complainant being compelled to pay rupees forty thousand to Altaf Ahmad and then only accused no. 1, Altaf Ahmad, took the victim, the complainant, to her sasural. Thereafter, victim was further subjected to cruelty by making circasting remarks, abuse, assault and keeping her hungry and in this manner they used to subject her to physical and mental cruelty. It is further alleged that the complainant informed her maike people by the telephone and ultimately they tried to poison the victim, but, the victim smell the evil design and did not take the poison. It is further allege that on 23.03.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. all the accused persons assaulted the victim on the abatement of Md. Wasi Ahmad and accused Awsar Ahmad got over the chest of complainant to kill her and Altaf with intention to kill the victim pressed her neck, in the meantime , the neighbours came and intervened and, thereafter, all the 4 accused persons thrown the victim out in inured state after snatching her clothes, jewellery and articles and, thereafter, the complainant, being compelled, came to her naiher, where she was treated by the local doctors, the injury report is attached with the complaint petition. 3. On the complaint petition the complainant and the witnesses examined on solemn affirmation as well as their statements were recorded and taking into consideration the statement of the complainant and the witnesses the cognizance was taken as stated above and process were issued. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, challenged the order taking cognizance mainly on three counts. The first is that the learned Magistrate who took cognizance has no territorial jurisdiction and, hence, the order taking cognizance is vitiated by the lack of territorial jurisdiction as no part of the occurrence, alleged to have been occurred in Khagaria, and has relied upon decision reported in (2008) 11 S.C.C., 103 (Bhura Ram & Ors. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) S.C.C., 262 = 2006(0) GLHEL S.C., 37996 (Manish Ratan Vrs. State of 5 Madhya Pradesh) and 2004(8) S.C.C., 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.). The next contention that Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, requires a sanction unless the sanction to prosecute is obtained, Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance as in the present case no sanction has been occurrence. He relied upon a decision reported in 1997(10) S.C.C., 524 = 1996 GLHEL S.C., 22775 (Rajesh Kumar Kejriwal Vrs. State of Bihar). It has, further, been contended that insult making derogatory remarks does not make an offence as there is allegation only of insult making derogatory remarks and the assault, which is not specific and omni bus and has relied upon decision reported (2005) 3 S.C.C., 507 (Ramesh & Ors. Vrs. State of T.N.). 5. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, contends that apart of the occurrence took place at maike and if the part of the occurrence took place at maike where she had gone during the offence having been continued and the demand, further, continued and father of the victim fulfilled the part of the demand and only then she was taken from sasural 6 from naiher by her husband and, hence, the part of the occurrence took place at Khagaria if taken place as mentioned in the complaint petition, itself, hence, Khagaria Court has also jurisdiction under Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code and has placed, further, after assault she was driven out went to Khagaria where she written statement treated and, hence, cognizance ensured at Khagaria, reliance upon the decision reported in (1997) 5 S.C.C., 30 (Sujata mukherjee (Smt.) Vrs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee). 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party, further, submitted that in view of the amendment in the Central Act, the provisions of the previous sanction having been deleted, no sanction is required and the de3cision cited by the learned counsel on the point as a decision per in curium which has itself been settled by this Court in a decision reported in 1992(2) P.L.J.R. , 56 (Shiv Devi Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) as well as in an unreported decision by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in Cr. Misc. No.4187 and 5311 of 2003, disposed off on 16th December, 2005, and, further, contended that the 7 allegation made makes out an offence and, hence, the order, impugned, is quite sustainable and, hence, the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be rejected. 7. On the respective submissions of the parties, the question for consideration is that (i) whether Khagaria Court, which issued process, after taking cognizance, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, (ii) whether the order, issuing processes, after taking cognizance for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, suffers from any illegality or irregularity, (iii) whether the allegation made makes out an offence. 8. However, the question whether Khagaria Court has territorial jurisdiction can well be decided on the basis of allegation made in the complaint. It is alleged that there is allegation of demand and subjecting cruelty. The victim come to naihar at Khagaria and was not taken then the father of victim paid rupees forty thousand for purchase of motorcycle and then the husband came and took the victim from Khagaria to Jamshedpur. Hence, fulfillment of demand 8 and in consequence taking the victim indicates part of occurrence took place at Khagaria to attract Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, giving jurisdiction to Khagaria Court. Further, after taking the victim to Jamshedpur and subjecting cruelty by assault driving her in injured state compelling her to come to come to maika at Khagaria and treated at Khagaria for assault at Jamshedpur, itself, indicate that the act done at Jamshedpur the consequence ensured at Khagaria to attract Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give jurisdiction to Khagaria Court. 9. It is well settled that the Court where occurrence took place ordinarily has jurisdiction to enquire and try the case, but, this is general Rule under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but, Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code provide that if act done at several place then each place has jurisdiction to enquire and try where part of occurrence has occurred and, further, Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if act done which constitute and offence at one place for which consequence ensued then the Court where act done or 9 consequence ensued has also jurisdiction to enquiry and try the case. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since, the part of occurrence took place at Khagaria and consequence also ensued at Khagaria so Khagaria Court has jurisdiction to try the offence and take cognizance. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon (2008) 11 S.C.C., 103 (supra). However, the fact of the case reported in (2008) 11 S.C.C. (supra), no part of occurrence nor consequence ensued at Rajasthan where cognizance taken appealable to the fact and circumstance of the case as there is no application of Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 11. Further, reliance placed on (2004) 8 S.C.C., 100 (supra). However, again the fact of the allegation made in complaint of that case accepted in toto all allegations took place at Narkoli and, hence, held that Chennai Court has no jurisdiction, hence, not applicable to the fact and circumstance of the present case. 12. However, in the contrary in Sujata 10 Mukherjee’s case as (1997) 5 S.C.C. 30 (supra) held that offence committed was continuing one and fact that husband had gone to Raipur and did the act was not an isolated event, but, part of offence, a continuing offence and, hence, held Section 178 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code is appealable. Hence, I find and hold that Khagaria Court has territorial jurisdiction. 13. The next question whether sanction is required for taking cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (1997) 10 S.C.C. 524 (supra) holding that cognizance without sanction is not permissible. However, the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision by it’s order, dated 16th September, 2005, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4187 of 2003 (Jai Prakash @ Kuku & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and Cr. Misc. No. 5311 of 2003 (Sital Prasad & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) take into consideration Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it’s State Amendment Bihar Act 4 of 1976 providing prior sanction for taking cognizance as well as Central Amendment by Act 63 of 1984 11 deleting the provision of requiring prior sanction for taking cognizance as well as decision reported in Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal’s case reported in 1997(1) S.C.C., 524 (supra) and held that in case of repugnancy between Central and State Amendment, the Central Amendment shall prevail and, since, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal’s case the Central Amendment 1984 having been not considered and State Amendment Act not having received the assent of Presiding, hence, is not an authority, thus, hold that prior sanction is not required for taking cognizance. Hence, it is held that no sanction is required for taking cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 14. The third submission is that allegation made does not make out an offence and for the submission reliance has been placed on decision reported in (2005) 3 S.C.C., 507 (supra). However, the allegation made in the case reported in (2005) 3 S.C.C., 507 (supra) is certain act of treating and ill- treatment of informant by her sister-in-law, but, that did not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to informant, 12 but, only allegation that sister-in-law directed to wash wc and she used to abuse and pass remark and, hence, in fact and circumstance held offence is not made out. However, in present fact circumstance, there is specific allegation of demand of motorcycle, T.V. and rupees one lakh cash and subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand and the father of victim even paid rupees forty thousand and even then she was assaulted and thrown out snatching her belongings specifically make out the offence. Hence, there is no merit in submission that no offence is made out. 15. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)