IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57299 of 2007 1. PRAMOD KUMAR YADAV 2. VINOD KUMAR, BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE SHIV DEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN BIGHA, POLICE STATION-GHOSHI, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD. --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SARITA DEVI WIFE OF PRMOD KUMAR YADAV, DAUGHTER OF SRI CHANDRADIP RAI OF VILLAGE SABAJPURA, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. --OPPOSITE PARTY ________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad For opp.party : Mrs. Archana Sinha For the State : Mr. B.P. Singh, APP 3 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite party no.2 and the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of entire proceeding in Complaint Case no. 430( C ) 2007 along with the order of cognizance dated 31st August, 2007. The short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur alleging that she was married with petitioner no. 1 in the month of March, 2006 on 2 payment of cash and kind. She arrived at her sasural soon thereafter behaviors of the in-laws of the petitioners became cruel with her and just after two days the petitioner no.1, the husband, left the place in the garb of attending his service and she was sent back to her parent’s place. Petitioner no.2, her Bhainsur, on request of her parents, brought her to in- laws place on the occasion of Chhath festival where her husband, petitioner no.1, has not come from Delhi and just four days thereafter she was again sent back to her father’s place. The petitioner no.1 started demanding Rs.50,000/- to purchase a motor cycle, through telephone he said that payment is condition precedent to get the complainant back. Subsequently, on 16.5.2007 on receipt of another telephone call the complainant and her family members went to the residence of petitioner no.2 at Chitkohra, Patna, where she found all the accused persons and she was forced to put signature on some paper wherein some wrong facts were stated. She obeyed the dictates due to fear of life. On release from such confinement all members went to Danapur where she is residing and it was advised by Danapur Police Station to lodge a case at Gardanibagh Police Station under whose 3 jurisdiction Chitkohra falls. The complaint was filed in the Court of Danapur. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order and further proceeding pending before the court at Danapur is that some demand of Rs.50,000/- on telephone in absence of any supporting material like print out of the telephonic calls etc. no offence of cruelty is made out. Moreover, subsequent part of the offence allegedly was committed under the jurisdiction of Gardanibagh Police Station so Subdivisional Court at Patna alone has jurisdiction to try this case. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Shanker Dayal Singh V. State of Bihar and Another; 2010(1) PLJR 612. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party submitted that there is no jurisdictional error and mental torture was caused. Therefore, complainant by living uncared at her parent’s place where through telephone demand of Rs.50,000/- as a condition precedent to bring her back to lead matrimonial relationship with her husband was made at Danapur. It is undisputed that complainant reside at 4 Danapur and as stated in the complaint petition and statement on solemn affirmation that after marriage she was forced to reside there uncared for several months and neither her husband nor any of his family members was in touch with her where a demand of Rs.50,000/- was made as condition precedent to continue matrimonial relationship with her. No doubt, subsequent alleged offence was committed within the jrusidiction of Gardanibagh Police Station but earlier offence was committed under the jurisdiction of Danapur Police Station. The decision whereupon reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in this case since in the case before the Court in earlier case was appearing entire offence of harassment and cruelty at different place, that is, Dhanbad but case was filed at Samastipur.. So question of jurisdiction was decided in different way which is not in the instant case. It is to be taken into consideration that complainant was left deserted at her parent’s place at Danapur causing mental harassment. One is to consider the miseries of a young newly married girl who is left uncared at her parent’s 5 place without any contact with her husband even on telephone and in such circumstances a demand of any amount is made through telephone as a condition precedent to rejoin the company of her husband. Such cruel acts comes well within the ambit of the provisions as contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as such: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine, Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Since harassment or cruelty, as defined above, has been caused to the complainant to realize some illegal demand, such offence is undisputedly continuing offence and subsequent part of the offence, no doubt, appears committed 6 AAhmad/ at Chitkohra but it does not brings the case out of jurisdiction of the Court at Danapur. Thus, finding no merit in this application, it is hereby dismissed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)