IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.43571 of 2008 1. MUGLA TUDDU, son of Sri Lakhan Tuddu 2. Lakhan Tuddu, son of Munshi Tuddu 3. Rubiya Tuddu wife of Sri Lakhan Tuddu 4. Randho Devi daughter of Lakhan Tuddu 5. Vishundeo Marandi son of Munshi Marandi Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANO ----------- 3/ 13.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Complaint Case no. 201 C of 2007, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and summoned the petitioners to face trial. Notice was issued to the complainant/opposite party no.2. In spite of notice to opposite party no.-2, no one appeared in this case. Learned counsel submits that no cause of occurrence took place in the District of Lakhisarai, as the Lakhisarai court would not have jurisdiction to try the case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions of this Court in case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 as well as Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajastahan reported in 2008 (3) PLJR SC 367. The complaint case does not disclose commission of an offence in the district of Lakhisarai, as such I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the instant case would not be maintainable in Lakhisarai court. In the circumstances, order taking cognizance is set aside. - 2 - However, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire prosecution on this ground itself. I direct that the file of the instant complaint case be transferred to Jamui court and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui will assign the case to any competent court to decide the case. The court assigned, will issue notice to the complainant and proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is bad on other counts as well. As the case has been decided on the 1st point of maintainability itself, the Court is not going into the other aspects of the matter. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)