IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10911 of 2007 1. AKHTARI KHATOON, WIFE OF WASI AHMAD KHAN. 2. WASI AHMAD KHAN, SON OF MD. RAFIQUE KHAN. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. ANWARI KHATOON, WIFE OF RAZI AHMAD KHAN. 4. MD. RAFIAUE KHAN @ MD. RAFIQUE, SON OF LATE HAWALDAR KHAN. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ISLAMPUR, DHAKA, P.S. DHAKA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI). ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RESHMA YASMIN, DAUGHTER OF NAZIR AHMAD KHAN, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PATHAN TOLI, P.S. AURANGABAD TOWN, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD, BIHAR. ……………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Manish Kumar No.III, Bhaskar Shankar and Rakesh Singh, Advocates. --------------- O R D E R Reshma Yasmin, the informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, had filed a written report with the Aurangabad P.S. on 19.4.2006 and on the basis thereof Aurangabad P.S. Case No.146 of 2006, G.R. No.750 of 2006, was registered under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation was that she was married to one Zaki Ahmad Khan on 4.11.2000 whereat her father had made a gift of Rs.2,00,000/- to her father-in-law, Md. Rafique Khan, petitioner no.4 herein, vide Bank Draft dated 17.10.2000 and that apart he had also - 2 - given ornaments, clothes, T.V. etc. worth Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of Rukhsati. It is stated that the initial period of matrimonial life was spent in cordiality and out of the wedlock, a son was born. Suddenly, the accused persons started pressurizing her to bring a Maruti Car from her father and threatened her that unless the car was given she would not be permitted to live in peace. It was also alleged that on coming back to her parents she narrated her tales of woe and her father expressed his inability to fulfill the demand and tried to reason with the accused persons as a result whereof her husband took her back to her matrimonial home but there was no apparent change in their behaviour and attitude towards her and her torture continued and she was treated like an animal, was assaulted on occasions and occasionally her food and water was stopped. She claims to have reported the matter in writing and over telephone to her mother. It is also alleged that in January, 2002 her husband snatched all her jewellery and selling the same left for Saudi Arabia from where he proceeded to Dubai. Following her husband’s departure she was ousted from the matrimonial home and took up residence at her father’s place. Efforts by her parents and brother to solve the matter and holding of a panchayti proved ineffective and her in-laws refused to bring her back to the matrimonial home. On 18.4.2005 with the help of her father she went to Dubai and lived with her husband for about 2 months where she conceived again. Following her pregnancy she was maltreated by her husband who assaulted her and forcibly sent her back to India and as a result of the assault by her husband her - 3 - pregnancy was aborted. On return to India, she was not permitted to live in the matrimonial home and during her stay there she was subjected to assault and torture whereafter she came to her parental home where she received information that on 17.2.2006 her husband had contacted a second marriage with the niece of her gotani, Akhtari Khatoon, with whom he had illicit relationship from before and she was further informed that her husband was trying to flee to Dubai. After due investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and by order dated 16.1.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, took cognizance and transferred the case to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, for disposal. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if all the allegations made in the written report are accepted at their face value it would appear that the entire allegations were general and omnibus in nature with no specific overt act being alleged against any of the petitioners. It was also submitted that the court at Aurangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the F.I.R. and take cognizance since none of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Court. In this connection, reference was made to the F.I.R. wherein it was indicated that the occurrence took place 400 kilometers away North-East at Islampur, Dhaka in the district of East Champaran. Although O.P. No.2 has put in an appearance but no show cause or counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf and only oral - 4 - submissions are sought to be advanced. It was submitted on behalf of O.P. No.2 that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. being a continuing offence and O.P. No.2 suffering the rigors of her torture and cruelty even at her parental home, the court at Aurangabad had jurisdiction to entertain the F.I.R. and take cognizance. The law on territorial jurisdiction is now well established by a catena of decisions, the latest of them being Bhura Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2008(3) PLJR 367(SC) which placed reliance on the decision of Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police, reported in (2004)8 SCC 100. From the allegations made in the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that the demand for the car was made at the matrimonial home of the informant at Dhaka in the district of East Champaran and that the harassment and maltreatment for non fulfillment of demand continued at that place and for a brief period in Dubai where she lived with her husband. That being the position the court at Aurangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to either entertain the F.I.R. or take cognizance. Even otherwise, the allegation against the petitioners herein are general and omnibus in nature and the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. cannot be attributed to them since the second marriage was contacted by the husband of the informant and not by these petitioners. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners herein would be an abuse of the process of the court since the court at Aurangabad had no - 5 - territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated:The 24th day of June,2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.