IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41172 of 2007 1. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SRI LOK NATH SHARMA. 2. LOK NATH SHARMA, SON OF LATE NAND LAL SHARMA. 3. CHANDRAKALA DEVI, W/O SRI LOK NATH SHARMA. ALL 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA-PRAGATE APARTMENT 4/A, 3/2 CHANDI CHARAN GHOSH ROAD, BEHALA (SILPARA), P.S. THAKUR PUKUR, DISTRICT-KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL). 4. KRISHNAKANT SHARMA @ KRISHNA SHARMA, W/O KAMAL KANT SHARMA. 5. KAMAL KANT SHARMA, SON OF SRI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA. 6. DEEP SHIKHA SHARMA @ PAPPI, W/O VISHNU SHARMA. ALL 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NO.-5, MRINAL BHAWAN, GAUTAM GHOSH BUILDING PAHARPUR ROAD, BARTATTAMORE, P.S. FATEHPUR, DISTRICT-KOLKATA. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MAMTA SHARMA, W/O LALIT SHARMA, D/O LATE GOVIND PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – RISHI BHAWAN ROAD DURGAPUR, BARA BAZAR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …..Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhola Prasad (Adv.) For the State : Mr. R.K. Pd. Yadav (APP). ----------- 04/ 16.04.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the informant. The petitioners are aggrieved from the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 732 of 2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Rev. No. 194 of 2006 whereby the complaint against order taking cognizance was dismissed. O.P. No. 2 has filed a complaint against 2 the petitioners and her husband alleging therein that the marriage was performed on 17.06.2005 with Lalit Kumar Sharma. Later on, her in-laws started torturing her in connection with demand of a Maruti Car or Rs. 3 Lakh. Submission is that the entire occurrence has occurred outside the jurisdiction of Katihar court. So, the Katihar court was not competent for taking cognizance because it was barred by territorial jurisdiction. I have perused the Complaint Petition, the Complaint Petition in Paragraph-12 mentions that on 02.12.2005 two of the accused have come for the purpose of withdrawal of pension. At that time the complainant and her family members requested them to take her in ‘Vidaii’. But that was refused and demand of one Maruti Car or Rs. 3 Lakh was made and it was suggested that for taking her in ‘Vidaii’ one flat may be given in place of one Maruti Car or Rs. 3 Lakh. The offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence. It cannot be said that one particular place has jurisdiction, in view of allegation of offence at different place. So, there is the jurisdiction and the order taking cognizance is correct because part of offence has 3 taken under jurisdiction of Katihar court. Another submission is that the Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are not related with the day-to-day affairs with the family. They are not be benefited from any demand which may be given by the complainant or her family members. Reliance has been placed on 2006 PLJR 534. The complainant in her complaint petition has described the role of the persons who have committed offence. In Paragraph-7, she has stated that accused no. 2, 3, 4 went with the complainant to Delhi where the demand was made. Later on, in Paragraph-8, it has been mentioned that the accused persons 5, 6 and 7 namely the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 also been to Delhi and they started pressurizing along with other accused persons in connection with demand of additional dowry and they also conspired with other accused persons in committing torture to the complainant in that connection. Therefore, the allegation of over act is leveled against the petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6 also so the petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6 are also liable for prosecuted offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Another material available on the record in this case is that the petitioners have chosen to 4 file a Revision Application before the Sessions Judge, Katihar and that Revision Application was dismissed. Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure bars for filing revision by the same party. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court that if orders are incorrect then inherited jurisdiction of this Court is not barred from interfering with the impugned orders. No doubt, in such circumstances, this Court can interfere, if there is patent illegality in the order. It is clear that there is no patent error in the impugned order on which this Court should interfere in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)