IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7285 of 2006 1. ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL, SON OF SRI KAILASH CHANDRA MANDAL. 2. KAILASH CHANDRA MANDAL @ KAILASH MANDAL, SON OF LATE YOGENDRA NATH MANDAL. 3. PRAMILA DEVI, WIFE OF KAILASH CHANDRA MANDAL. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. PHUDKIPUR, P.S. RADHA NAGAR(RAJ MAHAL), DISTRICT-SAHEBGANJ. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SASWATI KUMARI, WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL, DAUGHTER OF SURENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KISHANPUR, P.S. AMDABAD, DISTICT-KATIHAR. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Anshuman and Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R Three of the five persons, impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No.418 of 2005 against whom cognizance has been taken, have preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 15.1.2006/16.1.2006 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katihar, wherunder cognizance has been taken under Section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. against the petitioners. The complainant, one Saswati Kumari, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint case on 16.3.2005, inter alia, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and - 2 - 323 I.P.C. against the accused in between the period April, 2002 till the time of the filing of the complaint petition before the trial court. It has been stated that her marriage with the accused no.1, Ashok Kumar Mandal, was solemnized on 21.9.1995 whereat considerable dowry had been paid. It was alleged that at the time of marriage whereas she was possessed with degree of M.A. and B.Ed., her husband was unemployed and after her marriage notwithstanding her not receiving proper and cordial treatment from the in-laws, she continued her conjugal life and in the year 2002 when she became pregnant she was left unattended and was assaulted and tortured, both mentally and physically. It was also alleged that accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to marry her husband with someone at Banka where he had got himself transferred in a Middle School and the husband had even gone to the extent of putting pressure on her to give her signature on a blank piece of paper which would later be converted into her consent for second marriage of the husband. In the absence of proper treatment, food and medicines, her health deteriorated and she expressed her grievances to her neighbours who tried to intervene without any success. It is said that the neighbours informed her father who came over and with the help of neighbours she was removed to the residence of her maternal uncle (mama) where she was admitted in the hospital and gave birth to a daughter on 24.10.2002 but curiously none of the accused persons did care to come and see the baby not they did pay for the treatment. Even after she was taken to her parental home, none of the accused persons came to see her or the - 3 - newly born baby. It is alleged that having spent one year in the parental home when none of her in-laws made any inquiry about her she requested her father to bring her educational certificates and garments from her matrimonial home and when the father went for the purpose, the accused persons refused to handover the said belongings. It is also alleged that around the month of August or first week of September, 2003, she received a notice from the Court of the District Judge, Sahebganj, in Matrimonial Case No.22 of 2003, filed by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights, wherein she appeared on 1.11.2003 and submitted her written statement alleging inter alia of being subjected to torture mentally and physically and expressed her willingness to go back to the matrimonial home to lead the conjugal life provided her husband assured to treat her properly and extended proper treatment to her and her newly born baby. It is said that after a year accused no.1 filed a petition in the Matrimonial case on 27.11.2004 and sought amendment of prayer by seeking the decree of divorce. It was alleged that notwithstanding orders of the District Judge for accused no.1 to pay maintenance to the baby daughter, no payment, in fact, was being made. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the instant complaint case is by way of a counter blast to the matrimonial case for divorce filed by the husband in order to vex and harass them. It has also been submitted that it would be apparent from perusal of the complaint petition that no specific case of either physical or mental torture with date and time of occurrence and nature of overt act - 4 - has been mentioned therein and the allegations are omnibus and general in nature. The submission was sought to be buttressed by the fact that no injury or medical report was brought in evidence to support the fact of physical torture. It was also sought to be submitted that although the husband was ready to help out his in-laws, he was not ready to become a ghar jamaie which was the ultimate desire of his in-laws. The final submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that although no part of the occurrence, as alleged, had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the so called offences. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the decisions of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police(2004 AIR SCW 4788) and Ramesh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2005) AIR SCW 1379. Both the aforesaid judgments are in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of court holding the trial. The later judgment seeks to point out a situation where most of the acts were committed at a certain place and part of it was committed at another place where the wife was residing and their Lordships were of the opinion that the other place where the wife was residing with her parents had no jurisdiction to try the case. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was sought to be opposed by the learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No.2. In - 5 - this connection, it was sought to be submitted that mal-treatment and humiliation were meted out to the complainant at the hands of the accused and, therefore, it was a continuing offence and in such continuing offence wherein the accused had taken part the complainant was free to maintain her case at the place she was residing presently. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Mukherjee, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 30 and Manish Ratan Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262. In the instant case, the marriage admittedly took place at the parental home of the complainant in Village-Kisanpur within the district of Katihar whereas she went to her matrimonial home in Village-Fudkipur, P.S. Radha Nagar(Rajmahal) in the district of Sahebganj. Admittedly, also on being neglected and after the birth of the baby daughter the complainant was taken, after her discharge from the Malda Hospital, to her parental home in Village Kisanpur in the district of Katihar and during her stay in the parental home neither any of the accused persons cared to come and see the newly born baby nor did they pay any maintenance for the welfare and upkeep of the mother and child. However, there does not appear to be any allegation in respect of the demand for dowry and torture of the complainant as a result of non fulfillment of dowry demand. In that view of the matter, the allegation of commission of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C, does not rise nor appears to have been made out. - 6 - Even the allegation of the complainant of being assaulted so as to compel her to sign on a blank paper took place at the matrimonial home at Fudkipur within the district of Sahebganj and no assault is alleged to have taken place at her parental home in village Kisanpur within the district of Katihar. Taking into account the discussions made above regarding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. not having been made out and under offence 323 I.P.C. taking place at village Fudkipur, the Katihar court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter or even to maintain the complaint petition since admittedly no assault took place within its jurisdiction. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion for the reasons stated above, that the court at Katihar had no jurisdiction to maintain the complaint case and to take cognizance. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 10th of April, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.