IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13493 of 2007 SUBHANJAN MOHANTY & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, Advocate __________ O R D E R The two petitioners who by relationship are the father-in- law and husband respectively of the complainant, Mausami Sinha, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 , and who along with others have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.386 of 2006 , have prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad , whereby he has been pleased to issue process against the petitioners and others for facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323,498A,406 I.P.C. as also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Briefly stated the complainant’s case as culled out from the complaint petition inter alia is that her marriage with petitioner no.2 was solemnized on 13.7.2005 at Raipur in Chattisgarh whereafter she went to the matrimonial home in Aurobindo Enclave, Pachbedi, Raipur. It is alleged that 5-6 days after the marriage, all her in-laws, including these petitioners started aggravating their dissatisfaction on being cheated at the said marriage as she belonged to a poor and uncultured family and had not brought dowry as per their expectations and accordingly she was asked to bring one lac of rupees in cash from - 2 - her father and as she refused she was subjected to torture in the form of abuses and assault. Then on 29.8.2005, the accused persons forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home and was brought to Ranchi in a car. Enroute , she was allegedly assaulted several times by her parents –in-law, husband and nanad . At Ranchi, she was handed over to her father who had been summoned there and she came to Giridih with her father. The accused persons confiscated all her belongings. Later on , in between November,2005 and April,2006, the two petitioners came to Giridih on several occasions and on the threat of killing all her family members forcibly obtained her signature on plain paper on the pretext of opening a bank account in her name. They also obtained her signature on a plain paper for obtaining a mobile set as also on an Income Tax Form and on two blank cheque leaves, and took away her pass-book. It is also alleged that earlier when she was in the Sasural her father-in-law had tried on several occasions to establish sexual relationship with her but she had managed to save herself. It is said that by way of her safety she was sent to the native home in village Helalpur within the district of Arwal but even here she was not spared and on 2.7.2006 at about 10 A.M. both the petitioners came and forcibly tried to obtain her signature on some plain papers and when she refused, they threatened her. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to assail the impugned order on the ground that the court at Jehanabad had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the complaint and issue processes as no part of the cause of action took place within its territorial jurisdiction - 3 - and it has in fact transgressed its limits in violation of the Judgment of Y. Abraham Ajith –Vrs. Inspector of Police, reported in (2004)8 SCC 100. Expanding his submissions the learned counsel submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition is accepted at its face value then only threats were advanced at village Helalpur which was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Jehanabad Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 submitted with reference to the decisions of State of Bihar Vrs. Deokaran reported in (1972) 2 SCC 890 and Sujata Mukherjee –Vrs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in (1997) 5 SCC, 30 that the instant case was one of continuing offence which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once for all. It was further submitted that the act of demand of dowry and other related offences cannot be considered in isolation from each other but was continuance of the same transaction. The act of the two petitioners visiting the complainant in her place of safe shelter and threatening her and forcibly obtaining her signatures on documents and blank papers by threat of death of family members are all cumulative efforts to compel the complainant to fulfill the avaricious demand for dowry. It was on this premise that the learned counsel for complainant submitted that since threat was extended to her in village Helalpur , the Jehanabad Court had full jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition since part of the cause of action took place within its territorial jurisdiction. The submissions of the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 - 4 - have sufficient force and I accept the same. There is another aspect of the matter. Some of the accused, other then the petitioners, had preferred Cr.Revision No.116 of 2007 before this Court wherein they had challenged the same impugned order and had submitted similar grounds of the Jehanabad Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2007 holding that the Jehanabad Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order not having been challenged before a superior forum has become final. It is now fool –hardy for the petitioners to ask this Court to come to a different decision. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above I am of the confirmed opinion that the Jahanabad Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and issue processes. In the result there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 26th September,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.