IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10555 of 2007 1. Sairul Khatoon W/o Tauhid Saheb S/o Tabarakh @ Md. Rafi 2. Rafik Alam S/o Tauhid Saheb 3. Tauhid Saheb@ Tauhid S/o Tabarakh All R/o Tajpur, Village-Tajpur, P.S. Manjhi, District-Saran at Chapra, permanent R/o MIG Housing Colony, Kailash Colony,Bhilai (Durg), P.S. Jamul, Distt-Bhilai ( Durg) in the State of Chhattish Garh ------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Akhtar Hussain S/o Late Daroga R/o Village-Gaispur Mathia P.S. Siswan,Distt-Siwan ----------- Opp.parties. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Satyendra Rai, and Suman Kr.Mishra, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Umesh Kr.Mishra, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R Three out of the eight persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.2313 of 2005 have preferred this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.5.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan , whereby he has taken cognizance against the accused under Section 498 A and 323 I.P.C. and has summoned them. The prosecution case is based on the complaint petition filed by one Akhtar Hussain , impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, who stated that his daughter Saira Praveen was married on 27.6.2005 with accused no.8 Rafik Alam, petitioner no.2 herein and the son of petitioner nos.1 and 3 and after the marriage Saira went to her matrimonial home on 28.6.2005. It is alleged that two days after the marriage the parents of the husband started demanding a motorcycle - 2 - and Rs.50, 000/- in cash for setting up younger brother of her husband in some business and for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, Saira was subjected to torture and taunted and on occasions accused nos. 2 and 4 to 7 assaulted her with heated chholni . It is stated that after the marriage Saira was taken to village Tajpur in the district of Saran, Mamhar of the husband, as the marriage had been performed from there and one week later they shifted to Bhilai in the State of Chhatisgarh . It is stated that the torture of Saira had started from the Mamhar itself. It is further stated that Rafik Alam went abroad on 11.7.2005 in connection with his employment . It is alleged that Saira kept begging from the accused to spare her from the torture and harassment since her father was not in a position to fulfil the dowry demand but this had no effect on the accused who apart from abusing also started assaulting her and deprived her food and water. As a matter of fact, when she conceived her pregnancy was forcibly terminated by the accused which had adverse effect on Saira, mentally and physically and she apprehended that the accused were conspiring to kill her. She is said to have managed to send information to her brother at Delhi regarding her threat , whereupon her brother Roshan Ali went to Durg ( Bhilai) and there in his presence Saira was assaulted by accused nos. 2 and 7, the father-in-law and sister-in-law and she was ousted from the matrimonial home after confiscating all her belongings. Even Roshan is alleged to have been assaulted. It is said that Roshan having applied before the Religious Mosque Committee regarding the torture and cruelty took his sister to his - 3 - house. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan , who transferred it to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and he having inquired under section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance as stated above. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court at Siwan had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition since no cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. In this connection , it was submitted that the allegations of torture of Saira, as per the averments in the complaint petition ,started at village-Tajpur within the district of Saran and continued in Bhilai in the State of Chhatisgarh , and as such, only one of the two courts either at Saran or at Bhilai could have taken cognizance of the offences alleged. Although the complainant Opp.Party no.2 has appeared by filing Vakalatnama , no show cause has been filed on his behalf and only oral submissions have been advanced . It was contended that since Saira was now residing with her father within the jurisdiction of Siwan court, her father was entitled to pursue the complaint, and as such, it was maintainable before the court at Siwan. The question involved in this application regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Siwan is squairely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith Vrs. Inspector of Police reported in (2004)8SCC 100, wherein it was held that the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed could not be tried by a court within whose - 4 - jurisdiction no part of the offence was committed. Admittedly, from the averments in the complaint petition the alleged torture, abuse, cruelty etc. that Saira was subjected to occurred at village Tajpur in the district of Saran and at Bhilai in the State of Chhatisgarh. Therefore, the court at Siwan had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or to try the case as no part of the cause of action can be said to have taken place within its territorial jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the allocation is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 28th May,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.