IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16473 of 2008 1. RAM KUMAR PASWAN 2. NITISH KUMAR 3. VIRENDRA KUMAR PASWAN ALL SONS OF RAM NANDAN PASWAN 4. RAM NANDAN PASWAN, SON OF LATE PRAKASH PASWAN 5. CHANDRA KALA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM NANDAN PASWAN 6. ARCHANA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI BRAHAM DEO PASWAN ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSHEPUR, P.O NARGA, P.S. KALYANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR.----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF RAJENDRA PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJI DUMRA TOLA RAUTI, P.S. ROSERA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR.----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 14.9.2009 The only question that has been raised in this application is that the complaint petition could not have been filed in the Court at Rosera, Samastipur as the Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain the complaint petition and proceedings arising from the said complaint. I am passing this order without noticing the complainant as it would delay the entire matter. The Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Aziz Vs. Inspector of Police, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 has laid down the law on this subject. It has been held that the cause of action is understood to be a situation or state of affairs that entitled a party to maintain an action in Court or a tribunal. The question whether the Court can entertain her complaint is dependent on a bundle of facts and would require that the offence ought to have taken place where the complaint petition is filed. This question ought to have been raised in the 2 Court below so that it could be answered and considered by the Court below after hearing the parties. It appears that the question has not been raised as it is not reflected in the order of the lower Court. In the circumstances, I direct that the petitioners should raise this question in the Court below and the Court below after hearing the parties and considering the law on the subject should pass an appropriate order. The cases which ought to be considered by the Court below are reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, 2008(3) PLJR 366, 2007(1) BCCR 185 and 2009(3) PLJR 1012 as well as any other case relied by the parties. The matter should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months on filing of the application and appearance of the informant. It is made clear that if the Court finds that the application has been filed under wrong jurisdiction, it would be open to the complainant to file the complaint in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating this order to the Court of S.D.J.M., Rosera, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 581 of 2004/Trial No. 1220 of 2006. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)