IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15770 of 2007 PREM CHANDRA SHARMA @ PREM CHAND YADAV & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 15-09-2008 Heard Sri Bhola Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nitya Nand Tiwary, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 has appeared by filing Vakalatnama yet at the time of hearing of the case neither she nor her learned counsel is present. The petitioners who along with others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case no.2159 of 2005 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against them including the order dated 3.3.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498A and Section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court at Katihar had no jurisdiction to entertain or act upon the complaint petition since no part of the cause of action, according to the complainant’s own assertions , took place within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. Referring to the complaint petition the learned counsel pointed out that the place of occurrence as furnished was Koriana and Delhi, none of which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Katihar Court. It was also submitted that as per recital in the complaint petition the complainant after her marriage went to the matrimonial home at Koriana in the District of - 2 - Godda where she was subjected to torture at the hands of some of the accused persons and additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle or cash of Rs.50, 000/- in lieu thereof was demanded and in default she was abused, assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home. The next occurrence of torture is alleged to have taken place at Delhi. Unfortunately, as stated above, neither the complainant nor her counsel were present at the time of hearing, and as such, there is no rebuttal to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even the learned A.P.P. is not in a position to defend the impugned order. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court at Katihar having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition, the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed . ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-