IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37447 of 2006 Amrul Haque @ Master Mannu, Son of Jamadar Ali, R/O Vill. Semara ( Thawey), P.S. Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nurjehan W/O Sabbir Alam, R/O Bhishambharpur P.S. Barauli District- Gopalganj --------------- Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate For the State : Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None. ------------ O R D E R The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2003, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 14.5.2004 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 494, 307, 120B I.P.C. The informant, one Nurjehan, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, gave her fardbehan at 13.00 hours on 13.5.2003 at Gopalganj Sadar Hospital inter alia stating that she was married to one Sabbir Alam who some 8-10 years ago had contacted a second marriage at Delhi with one Sahana Parveen and was living with her at Delhi, whereas she herself was living with her mother at her parental home in village Bishambharpur under Barauli Police Station. It is further stated that some two months back her husband and Salima Khatoon, her mother-in-law , came to her paternal home and took her back to the matrimonial home at village-Semara and she had been - 2 - living there since. It is also stated that on 3.5.2003 her father-in-law, Amrul Haque @ Master Mannu , the petitioner herein, and Salima Khatoon informed her that they had received a telephone call from her son at Delhi inviting all of them to come over and accordingly they left for Delhi on the same day reaching Delhi on the following morning where they put up in a lodge. It is alleged that in the evening her husband arrived and told them of a visit to Agra to see the Tajmahal. It is further alleged that on 6.5.2003 her husband along with second wife and his parents took her to Agra and enroute on the train she was administered six medicinal tablets, as a consequence whereof she fainted. On regaining consciousness she found herself at a deserted place by the side of the railway line and she also found herself immobile. On the following morning, some people who had assembled , removed her to Dhaulpur Hospital in Rajasthan, where she was treated. She claims to have informed her brother who arrived and took her back to Gopalganj where she is being treated in the Sadar Hospital. It is her claim that her husband , parents –in-law and Sautan, Sahana Parveen , had conspired to kill her and in doing so had administered medicine to intoxicate her and had thrown her out of the running train in order to kill her. Assailing the impugned order, the principal point, on amongst others, canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court at Gopalganj had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the fardbeyan and take cognizance as the entire alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on the train from Delhi to Agra and her initial - 3 - treatment was at Dhaulpur Hospital in Rajasthan where she had been admitted. It is further submitted that the informant does not appear to have informed the local police or the Government Railway Police regarding the incident and the absence of the injury report by Dhaulpur Hospital in the case diary goes to cast serious doubt upon the prosecution case as the injury report available in the case diary is that of the Gopalganj Hospital. It was further sought to be submitted that the injury report itself does not corroborate a case of a person being thrown from a running train with the intention of killing. Although notice in the admission matter was duly received by the informant-Opp.Party no.2 , she has chosen not to appear and contest the application. Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides for the place where ordinarily the enquiry or trial is to be held and reads as follows: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” The leading case on the point is that of Y. Ebraham Ajith Vrs. Inspector of Police reported in (2004 ) 8 SCC 100, wherein the Apex Court has held that the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. In the instant case, the occurrence apparently took place in between Delhi and Agra and the victim was initially treated at Dhaulpur Hospital in Rajasthan. In that view of the matter the court at Gopalganj had no apparent jurisdiction to entertain the F.I.R. or take cognizance and - 4 - permitting continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court. Although, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by only one of the four F.I.R. named accused, in view of the fact that the F.I.R. as also the impugned order is required to be quashed, since neither the Gopalganj Police Station nor the Court at Gopalganj had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the written report of the informant and the consequential cognizance order ,accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in respect of all the F.I.R. named accused arising from Gopalganj P.S. Case No.128 of 2003, G.R.No.747 of 2003 is quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 1st July,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.