IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35506 of 2007 GANESH MAHTO & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 15.4.09 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners pray for quashing the entire criminal prosecution case including the F.I.R. of Ekma P.S. Case No.60/05 dt.17.8.05 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2418/05 for offence under section 304B/34 of I.P.C. arising out of Complaint Case No.1851/05 filed by the complainant O.P. No.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. Learned counsel submits that no cause of action took place at Chapra and as such the entire criminal prosecution 2 emanating from prosecution case being Ekma P.S. Case No.60/05 under section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. is fit to be quashed. Even the subsequent statements of Lal Babu Mahto, O.P.No.2,under section 161 Cr.P.C. does not show that any cause of action took place in the District of Saran. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 as well as in the case of Bhura Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan & anr. Reported in (2009) 1 SCC (cri.) 109 has held that a case cannot be tried at a place where no cause of action took place. He further submits that the place where demand of dowry and torture has been perpetuated could be a 3 relevant consideration for determining the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the case of Kumari Suman and others versus State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 4187 also. This Court had called for a copy of the case diary to ascertain as to whether any cause of action has taken place in the District of Saran. The learned State counsel submits that Luxmi Devi, mother of the deceased, as well as the Gotani of the deceased,namely, Jagmato Devi, have stated in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., that after marriage the accused persons came to the village home of the informant in the 4 District of Chapra and demanded dowry. As such learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that no part of occurrence took place in the district of Chapra. By referring to section 178 (b) of Cr.P.C., he submits that a case can be instituted at a place where even a part of cause of action takes place. Surprisingly, the O.P.No.2 has supported the stand of petitioner, that cause of occurrence took place at Siwan or in the State of Rajasthan. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any dispute regarding propositions of law laid down by the apex Court in the cases of Y.Abraham Ajith and Bhura Ram (supra). It appears from paras 5 5 and 7 of the case diary that some parts of the occurrence took place at Chapra. In the back drop of aforesaid discussions, I doe not find appropriate to quash the prosecution on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. As such this application is dismissed. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)