IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30428 of 2005 1. ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ABDUL HAQUE, SON OF SEKAR ALI. 2. AHILA BANO @ AKILA KHATOON, WIFE OF ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ABDUL HAQUE. 3. ASHMAT JHAHAN @ ISMAT JHAHAN, DAUGHTER OF ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ABDUL HAQUE. 4. AZMAL JAHAN @ AZMAT JAHAN, DAUGHTER OF ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ABDUL HAQUE. 5. KANIJA BEGUM, WIFE OF IKBAL. 6. MANJAR ALAM, SON OF IKBAL. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GUNJARIA, POLICE STATION GOAL POKHAR (ISLAMPUR), DISTRICT-UTTAR DINAZPUR (WEST BENGAL). 7. JAMIL AKHTAR, SON OF ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ABDUL HAQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GUNJARIA, P.S. ISLAMPUR (GOAL POKHAR), DISTRICT UTTAR DINAZPUR (W.B.). AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF 1543 PATEL HOUSE DARIYAGANJ, NEW DELHI. …………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PRAVEEN SULTANA, WIFE OF ALAM @ MUNNU, RESIDENT OF GUNJARIA JHANA GOAL POKHAR. AT PRESENT RANGAVEETA(NEMUGURI), P.S. GOLGALIYA, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ. ……………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Pankaj Kumar Sinha and Diwakar Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Dr,Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. ShabbirAhmad and Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocates. -------------- O R D E R 4. 16.3.2009. Through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seven of the eight persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.891(C) of 2004, have questioned the legality and the propriety of the order dated 24.12.2004 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences punishable - 2 - under Sections 323, 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioners. The impugned order is sought to be assailed on several grounds including the principal ground of the cognizance taking court at Kishanganj having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as no part of the cause of action took place within its territorial jurisdiction. In this connection, it was submitted that the venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments in the complaint or the F.I.R. unless the averments made therein are positively disproved. Reliance for the proposition was sought to be placed on the decision of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100. On the other hand, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submitted that from a reading of the complaint petition it would be apparent that the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are clearly made out and this Court in that situation should be loath to interfere with the order impugned. The submission of the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 would have unflinching relevancy provided the cognizance taking court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, i.e., if any part of the cause of action took place within its territorial jurisdiction . If the court had no power to entertain the complaint for want of jurisdiction then even if offences are clearly made out from the averments in the complaint petition, it could not have exercised jurisdiction. The crucial question in the present situation is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the cognizance - 3 - taking court. Though not defined, the expression “cause of action” would broadly speaking mean the place where the alleged offence was committed. In other words “cause of action” as defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.) means simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. In the instant case, as per the averments in the complaint petition, all alleged overt acts admittedly took place within the premises of the matrimonial home of the complainant –O.P. No.2 in Village Gunjaria, P.S. Islampur in the District of West Dinajpur, West Bengal which apparently was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj. Accordingly, the court at Kishanganj had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint petition and as such the taking of cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, was an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in law. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the application is allowed and the impugned order , so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed. The learned court will return the complaint to the complainant for its proper filing, if so advised. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)