IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14075 of 2007 OM PRAKASH MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Bhola Prasad, Advocate. Mr. S. K. Singh, advocate. 8. 09.04.2010 Challenge under this petition is to the order dated 9th June 2006 of the learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai as passed in Complaint Case No. 279 ( c) of 2006 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 323, 504 and 498A IPC has been taken against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the complainant. This application also seeks to challenge the order dated 17th November 2006 of the learned Sessions judge, Begusarai as passed in Cr.Revn.No. 359 of 2006 whereby the revision was dismissed and whereunder the said order dated 9th June 2006 of the learned Judicial Magistrate was upheld. The O.P.No.2 filed complaint no. 279(c ) of 2006 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 20th February 2006 alleging that she was married to the petitioner on 27th April 1995 and she lived with the petitioner at his Govt. Quarters in Pataliputra Colony, Patna where the petitioner is posted in CISF. It is further alleged that in the year 1996 while the petitioner started living at the place of another posting of CISF, Barauni Refinery the petitioner did beat her and also tried to kill her and ousted her from her matrimonial house. Her brother Ranjit Jha also convened a Panchayati for resolving the matter, but the petitioner did not listen to them. She alleged that since 1996 the 2 petitioner stopped giving her any help for maintaining and she was passing her days living with her poor brother and Bhabhi. She further alleged that on 10th February 2006 she along with her brother went to the present place of posting of the petitioner which has been described as the Govt. Quarters in Pataliputra Colony, Patna (first place of the complaint) and when she demanded her ornaments kept by the petitioner and wanted to live with him, the petitioner abused her and threatened to kill her, if she tried to reside in his house. She also alleged that the petitioner ousted her from his Govt. Quarters there. Thus, she alleged that the petitioner ousted her from the matrimonial house from 1996 and he is not maintaining her. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in this case the cause of action is specifically stated to have taken firstly in the year 1996 at the petitioner’s Government residential quarters in CISF, Barauni Refinery and thereafter the 2nd place of occurrence is stated to be on 10th February 2006 at petitioner’s CISDF Govt. residential quarters in Pataliputra Colony, Patna. Thus, the P.O. is at two places lying within the jurisdiction of Begusarai district and Patna district. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction. It was submitted that the first occurrence of torture and harassment as alleged is stated to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Begusarai and 2nd one within the jurisdiction of Patna district. So far the occurrence within Patna district is concerned, it was argued that Begusarai court had no jurisdiction to try the case after 3 cognizance being taken within that district. In support of his contention, learned counsel cited the decision in the case of Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(3) PLJR (SC) 367. It was a case under Sections 498, 406 and 147 IPC wherein it was held that the offence could not be tried by the court where cause of action had not occurred at all and, accordingly, the prosecution for the offence which had taken place within the jurisdiction of another court was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Another decision in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 was cited by the petitioner’s counsel. Similar view has been propounded in this case also which related to the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this case, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that when the O.P.No.2 went to his government residential quarters on 10th February 2006 and she demanded her ornaments and wanted to live, she was abused, ousted and also threatened that she would be killed, if she tried to live there. This specific allegation makes out a case within the jurisdiction of Patna district for which a complaint could have been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna only. Therefore, it is rightly submitted that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, where the complaint was filed, had no jurisdiction to try the offence, in view of section 177 Cr.P.C. which enunciates that the offence will ordinarily be tried at the place within whose jurisdiction it takes place. So far the maintainability of the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai is concerned, the learned 4 counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the O.P.No.2 states to have been driven out from her matrimonial house which was petitioner’s government residential quarters in CISF, Barauni in the year 1996. It was further submitted that the O.P.no.2 also admits in her complaint that thereafter, for 10 years till 10th February 2006, she remained with her brother and Bhabhi and on that day she had gone to petitioner’s residential quarter at Pataliputra colony, Patna. It is submitted that within these ten years between 1996 to 10th February 2006, the O.P.No.2 does not cite any specific instance of torture. Learned counsel continues to submit that the only instance at Begusarai is stated to be of the year 1996, though any specific date has not been disclosed, but the same is stated in the manner that in that occurrence, she had been forcibly turned out of her matrimonial house and an attempt was also made to kill her. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far the said offence of the year 1996 is concerned, the complaint was filed for the same alleging the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 498A IPC for which cognizance was taken by the impugned order dated 9th June 2006. Learned counsel submitted that the sentence for the offence under sections 323, 504 and 498A IPC is upto three years only. Referring to Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. it was pointed out that the limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is three years only. Learned counsel submitted that so far the offence within the jurisdiction of Begusarai is concerned, it is alleged in the year 1996 but the cognizance for that offence has been taken vide the impugned order dated 9th June 2006 i.e. after 10 years of 5 the occurrence. It is pointed out from the impugned order dated 9th June 2006 that no order on limitation matter for condoning the delay in filing of the complaint was passed. It was further submitted that since the taking of cognizance of offence was passed beyond the limitation of three years as provided under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and there being no order condoning the day in the filing of the complaint, the impugned order dated 9th June 2006 is bad in law on that score. The submission of the learned counsel carries substantial reasons. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 is not able to show that any order condoning the delay in the filing of the complaint was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The offence as alleged in the year 2006 is also not an offence in nature of continuing offence . In such view of the mattes, the impugned order dated 9th June 2006 as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai taking cognizance of the offence is found to suffer with illegality on the point of limitation and, therefore, the same is quashed. In view of the discussions above, the impugned order dated 9th June 2006 appears to suffer with illegality in respect of jurisdiction and limitation. The same is not fit to be sustained in law. Consequently, the order dated 17th November 2006 of the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai as passed in Cr.Rev. No. 359 of 2006 is also quashed. The impugned order dated 9th June 2006 taking cognizance of the offence is quashed, but at the same time, it is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant/O.P.No.2 will be returned to her and 6 she will be at liberty to file afresh complaint seeking the proper relief as per law. The application is allowed. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad, J )