IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11304 of 2010 1. TAIMUN NESHA, wife of Mustafa 2. Md. Firoj sonof Mustafa Both resident of village – Ghorghatiya, P.S. – Kubair Sthan, District – Kushinagar, U.P. ---------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Abida Khatoon of Md. Firoj, daughter of Md. Nijarudin resident of village – Mirja Tola Bagaha, P.S. – Bagaha, District – West Champaran. ------------ Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh I, Adv. 02. 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no.2 who appeared by filing Vakalatnama and also learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 14.05.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, West Champaran in Trial No. 1794 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-444 of 2008, for which cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as entire allegation levelled in the complaint petition constituting the offence took place at village Ghorghatiya, P.S. – Kubair Sthan, District – Kushinagar, (Uttar Pradesh), where the 2 complainant went after marriage and enjoyed matrimonial life with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Channai and another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 and besides subsequent decision of Apex Court in case of Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2008) 3 PLJR SC 367. After some argument, learned counsel for the opposite party fairly conceded that since the alleged occurrences took place only under the jurisdiction of the court of U.P. in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, court at Bagaha where the opposite party now resides has no jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the cases referred to above has clearly held that since as stated in complaint, entire offence of the case had taken place at the place where the husband of the complainant resided from where the complainant of the case left and no subsequent offence was alleged. The court under whose jurisdiction the offences were said to have committed has jurisdiction. The court where the complainant subsequently resides has got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 3 In the instant case, the complainant was married with the petitioner no. 2 at village Mirja Tola, Bagaha, West Champaran, on 20.03.2001, she went at her sasural at village Ghorghatiya, P.S. – Kubair Sthan, District – Kushinagar, (Uttar Pradesh), where she was blessed with children and also as alleged tortured for dowry etc. and ultimately thrown out of house. She returned to her Maike and filed the case, stating nothing about any offence committed there. Thus, this case as stated is squarely similar with the cases before Apex Court, wherein the provisions as contemplated under Section 177 Cr. P.C. has been considered which reads as such:- “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.” Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this application stands allowed, proceeding of the court below is quashed. Simultaneously, opposite party is at liberty to file a case if so wishes at appropriate forum. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)