IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42396 of 2007 1. SACHCHIDA NAND SINGH SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- KURSHAND, P.S.- ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA 2. MEERA DEVI WIFE OF SACHCHIDA NAND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- KURSAND, P.S.- ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA 3. RAGHUBANSH SINGH SON OF LATE RAM KISHAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- PRATAP NAGAR, P.S.- NAUGACHIYA, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR 4. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF RAGHUBANSH SINGH, R/OVILALGE- PRATAP NAGAR, P.S.- NAUGACHIYA, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SUNDERVAN, P.S.- NAUGACHIYA, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ……...Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARPANA DEVI WIFE OF HARIBANSH SINGH OF VILLAGE PUNAMA PRATAP NAGAR, P.S.- NAUGACHIYA, DISTRICT- NAUGACHIYA BHAGALPUR, DAUGHTE R OF CHANDRACHUR SINGH, AT PRESENT VILLAGE- BAUHARA, P.S.- KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER ………….Opposite Parties ***** For the Petitioners :- Mr. B. S. Thakur, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque, APP ************* 6 20/05/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.3.2007/26.3.2007 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in C.R. No. 64C of 2007 by which cognizance under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners 2 also. 3. A complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 stating that she is the legally married wife of accused Haribansh Singh. The marriage has taken place on 10th July, 2000 at village Banhara which is the house of the complainant’s father Chandrachur Singh under the police station of Kharagpur, district- Munger. The complainant’s father spent about rupees two lacs which was beyond his capacity. Out of that rupees one lac was paid in the form of dowry to the accused and the father also gave valuable articles like ornaments, cloths to the complainant worth rupees fifty thousand. Other valuables such as golden chain, ring and cloths of rupees thirty thousand was given to accused no. 1. namely, her husband. Remaining amount was paid to the accused persons as marriage expenses. Initial days passes happily but later on pressure was being given upon the complainant for rupees fifty thousand more by way of additional dowry and on refusal she was tortured like anything by all the accused persons. She was abused at intervals and she was debarred even of basic facilities which were required for the livelihood. Having no alternative, she informed then the witnesses came to the house of the accused and she was brought back to the house of her parents in the month of December, 2000. At 3 the time of Vidagri the accused persons demanded rupees fifty thousand from the witnesses including the father of the complainant. The complainant tried her best to sort out the matter but the accused persons were not ready to bring back the complainant and later on assured that no demand of Rs. 50,000/- would be made and then the complainant went with her husband to his house on 6th March, 2006. After some months again the accused persons started torturing her and on denial she was brutally assaulted by the accused persons and she had to leave the house of her in-laws on 7.11.206 and since then she is taking shelter in the house of her father. She was not allowed to carry any article which was given to her by her father at the time of her marriage. On 7.11.2006 she was forced to write on a blank paper that even if her husband marries with another lady then she would have no objection. When the complainant arrived at her father’s house then the father, brother and uncle of the complainant approached the husband and other in-laws of the complainant and requested that the complainant should be brought back to their house but it was denied. The complainant having no option but to institute the case. 4. From the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, it appears that the 4 parties have compromised the case and the complainant is living in her matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the previous date i.e. 7.5.2010 so that the opposite party no. 2 is brought to this court because according to him, she was living with the family of her in-laws. But she was not brought to this Court. The learned counsel has challenged the order taking cognizance only on the ground that it was barred by the jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the occurrence of demand of dowry and torture was occurred within the jurisdiction of Naugachia (Bhagalpur) judgeship but the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate at Munger. On this ground alone the order taking cognizance has been assailed. 5. Chapter III of the Cr.P.C. is meant for prescribing the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiry and trial. According to Section 177 Cr.P.C. every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 Cr.P.C. prescribes the jurisdiction when the offence is committed in several local areas or partly in one area and partly in another area or when the offence is continuing one, and is being committed in more local areas than one and or when it consists of several acts done in different local areas, in that circumstances the 5 offence was to be inquired or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the entire occurrence has taken place within the jurisdiction of Naugachia, Bhagalpur district and no part of offence has occurred in the judgeship of Munger district so the court at Munger was not entitled to take cognizance. 7. Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is an offence in which it can be said to have been committed at various places where the complainant had to reside due to torture at another place and demand of dowry was made at the place where the complainant was residing. In the present case the complainant was residing at her father’s house which is situated in the judgeship of Munger district and demand was being made there. If no part of cruelty would have been committed in the Munger then Munger court could have no jurisdiction but in the present case it is apparent that the demand was being made by in-laws from the complainant who was residing at Munger. When a wife has suffered consequence of cruelty committed by the husband outside the jurisdiction then the place where the wife is suffering cruelty also becomes the place where the court was said to having jurisdiction. The marriage in the present case was in the 6 Munger and dowry was being made from the persons who are residing in the judgeship of Munger. According to paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, even at the time of Vidagri the accused persons have demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the witnesses including the father of the complainant. It is apparent from the narrations of the complaint petition that the demand was being made at Munger where the complainant was living at Munger where she was bearing agony of her torture by her in- laws. So the Court at Munger had jurisdiction to try the offence. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is correct and this application has no merit. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)