IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13154 of 2007 DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHARMENDRA KUMAR VEDI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Abdul Mannan Khan and Anamul Haque, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. -------------- O R D E R This application at the instance of all the six persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.109(C) of 2003 is directed for quashing of order dated 2.9.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby he has refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C. as also the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Cr. Revision No.363 of 2006 preferred by petitioner no.1 against the order dated 2.9.2006 whereby he has dismissed the revision at the admission stage. The complainant, Sunita Kumari, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint case inter alia stating that her marriage with Dharmendra Kumar, petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 13.12.1999 at village Eknia in the District of Khagaria whereat Rs.51,000/- in cash and gold ornaments of 7 bhar weight was given to the bridegroom apart from gifts given to her. Having spent sometime in the matrimonial home and returned later to her parental home where she gave birth to a girl child. Thereafter she returned to the matrimonial - 2 - home with her husband on 5.5.2001 and she was soon subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash. The matter was communicated by her to her father who came over to reason with the son-in-law and his father but without any success and instead he was abused and ill-treated. Seeing the predicament of the father, the complainant objected whereupon she and her father were assaulted by accused nos.1 and 4 to 6 and further accused nos.4 to 6 demanded that the father give 12 tolas of gold which they would give to their sister. It is said that then the complainant’s father submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Khagaria, in respect of the happenings and on his initiative the complainant returned to her parent’s home. Later, on 27.2.2002 at the panchayati convened, the father-in-law and the father of the complainant participated and a compromise was arrived at whereby the accused promised neither to ill-treat or misbehave with the complainant nor would they demand any dowry and related papers in that regard were prepared. Assured by the compromise, the complainant returned to the matrimonial home at village Eknia. It is alleged that on 4.12.2002 the complainant was locked in a room and severely assaulted by the accused and on the orders of accused no.2, accused no.4 tried to administer poison which she managed to avoid by pushing away the bottle. She was later sprinkled with kerosene oil in an attempt to burn her but arrival of the neighbours, attracted by her cries, saved the situation. She was brought back to the parental home by her father who also got her treated. It is alleged that the accused refused to - 3 - hand over any of her belongings when she was coming to her parental home. While denying the accusations attributed to them, it has been submitted that the complainant in her deposition before charge had categorically refused to reside with the husband and on this ground the accused had prayed for their discharge which on erroneous consideration was rejected by the trial court. Revision preferred there against was also dismissed. I see no illegality or irregularity in the two orders. The torture of the complainant in the matrimonial home was of such intensity and that too after the compromise at the panchayati, that it would be impossible for her to live there. Before this Court a plea of the Begusarai Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint has been raised as all the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Khagaria Court and no part thereof took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Begusarai Court. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of V. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2004(8) SCC 100. Counsel for the complainant opposing the application submitted that the complainant had been sent to the matrimonial home after the panchayati within the territorial jurisdiction of Begusarai Court on promise of being kept properly in the matrimonial home. Earlier thereto when the father of the complainant had gone to reason with the husband and his father he had been abused and ill treated and when the complainant objected to the same she alongwith her father were - 4 - assaulted by some of the accused and it was only on the intervention of the S.P. Khagaria that the complainant could return to her parental home and her being outside from the matrimonial home that she had to live at her parental home. Section 177 Cr.P.C. states that “ordinarily” every offence shall be tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Section 178 Cr.P.C. provides for the place of trial where the offence is committed in more than one place. The words “ordinarily” in Section 177 Cr.P.C. is of great significance. The Apex Court in the case of Mohan Baitha Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 4 SCC 350 observed that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. The said judgment also took note of the fact that the word “ordinarily” need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration of convenience or may be implied from other provisions of law. The facts of the present case are somewhat different from the one in Abraham Ajith’s case (supra). The demands for dowry were made by the petitioners at village Eknia, the torture of the complainant was also at village Eknia, the father of the complainant was abused and ill treated at Eknia and even as the complainant raised objections in respect of the misbehaviour meted out to her father, she and her father were also assaulted by the accused at Eknia. Thereafter, it appears that only on the intervention of the S.P. Khagaria that the complainant was returned to her parents’ home and it was only after the panchayati - 5 - convened on 27.2.2002 where the complainant’s fathering-law and father entered into a compromise and on the basis of assurances given by the father-in-law that the complainant was sent back to her matrimonial home where attempts were made to kill her, first by administration of poison and then by setting her on fire, whereafter she was brought back to the parental home. It would thus appear from the allegations made in the complaint petition that the demand for dowry continued throughout the entire occurrence and it was because of the dowry demand that she and her father were assaulted, maltreated and humiliated and only on the intervention of the S.P. Khagaria could complainant come back to the parental home and save herself. The parental home as would appear is village-Chauki, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal in the District of Begusarai. It would thus appear that the cause of action occurs both within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Begusarai and Khagaria and the Begusarai Court thereby had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, took cognizance and issued process. In the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the court at Beguarai had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. In the result, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 26th of September,2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.