IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30811 of 2008 Sashi Bhushan Rai @ Neeraj Kumar Rai, son of Uday Narayan Rai, resident of Mohalla- Bhumihari Tola, Civil Line, Buxar, P.S. Buxar (T), District-Buxar. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Reena Devi, daughter of Shri Surendra Rai, resident of Village- Bal Bandh, P.S. Charpokhari, District-Bhojpur. …Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Mr. Nil Kumar, Advocate. For O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. ----------- 8. 23. 2. 2011. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03. 05. 2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 201 C/2006 by which summons have been ordered to be issued by which process has been issued calling of the accused after taking cognizance for offence under Section 498 A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that her marriage was solemnised on 19. 04. 2000 with accused no. 1 and it is alleged that there was allegation of demand of Maruti Zen car or Rs. 2,00,000/- and subjected to cruelty for non- fulfilment of demand.Ultimately,it is alleged that on14. 02. 2006, she was abused, assaulted and snatched 2 her jewellery and cloths. After they took her to Ara by train and from there they took the victim by bus to Garhani from there took the victim on foot near the village of the complainant and left away then the victim went to her house and disclose the incident to her parents. 3. On the complaint petition, the complainant and witnesses examined on oath and after taking into consideration the complaint and statement of complainant and witnesses were recorded and process was issued after taking cognizance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, challenged the impugned order on the ground that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance as the subject matter within the jurisdiction of Buxar, as the entire occurrence alleged to have been occurred at Buxar. It is further submitted that in the order taking cognizance no reason has been mentioned for taking cognizance nor any material to arrive at the finding that prima facie case is made out and has relied upon decision reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 380 and 2010 (3) PLJR 851. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contends that there is allegation that victim has assaulted and abused and took her by train to 3 Garhani and from there she was taken to village near Naihar of the complainant and left there and then the complainant compelled to go to her Naihar. Hence, the accused persons subjected her to cruelty and took her to the village near her Naihar and left her there itself shows that part of action held within the jurisdiction of Naihar at Ara. Hence, it is submitted that part of cause of action occurs at Ara under the jurisdiction of the Court. It has further been contended that allegation made in the complaint makes out an offence and court at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process not required to give reason at the stage of order taking cognizance and issuance of process. 6. Hence on the respective submissions, question for consideration whether impugned order is sustainable. 7. However, having regard to the fact, there is allegation that victim has subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand and allegation makes out an offence on the face value of the complaint petition. 8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, victim has subjected to cruelty for non- fulfilment of demand and thereafter, she was taken from Buxar to Ara near her Maika after snatching her belongings. 4 9. Hence, having regard to the allegation she was taken by the accused persons and hence allegation made in the complaint petition at this stage part of cause of action is in the territory and court under jurisdiction part of cause of action and Magistrate has also jurisdiction to take cognizance and the jurisdiction is itself on the basis of averment made in the complaint. 10. Since there is averment that she was taken her Maika itself shows jurisdiction of the Section 177 of Cr.P.C. that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 11. However, Section 178 of Cr.P.C. provides that (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local area, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Having regard to the fact that victim had subjected to cruelty and taken out with the accused persons and was left her at her village near Maika, 5 within the jurisdiction of the Ara Court and Hence Ara court has got jurisdiction in view of Section 178 of Cr.P.C. clause (b) and (c) and hence there is no merit in assertion that Ara court has no jurisdiction. However, the decision reported in 2010 PLJR 851 is not applicable as in the fact and circumstance of that case not part of occurrence alleged to have occurred in the jurisdiction of the court which took the occurrence. 12. However, the question raised that Magistrate has not been assigned any reason and reliance has been placed on decision reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 380. However, when the complaint petition filed and cognizance is taken at the moment the Magistrate take statement of the complainant. However, after examination of the complainant and witnesses the Magistrate proceed to issue process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. However, impugned order is under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. by which process has been ordered to be issued after taking cognizance. 13. However, Section 190 of Cr.P.C. provides that Magistrate after receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence may take cognizance. However, the Magistrate take cognizance on receipt of the complaint and after taking cognizance provides under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by providing for examine 6 the complainant on S.A. and thereafter provides under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. under enquiry and to take evidence and thereafter, come to a stage under Section 204 for issuing process. However, Section 204 of Cr.P.C. provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance, he may issue summon for attendance or the accused and hence at the stage of issuing summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. opinion of the Magistrate is only required and there is no requirement any law that Magistrate is required to give reason. However, it is relevant to quote para 7 of the decision reported in 2003 (1) PCCR 433; " 7. The second reason given by the High Court for allowing the petition filed by the respondents (accused) is that the order passed by the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence does not show that the learned Magistrate had even perused the complaint or that he had applied his judicial mind before taking of the cognizance. The order passed by the learned Magistrate reads as under: "Cognizance taken. Register the case. Issue summons to the accused." In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be 7 satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not, whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons.This question was considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1456: 2000 (1) PCCR 341 (SC) and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of west Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522:2000 (1) PCCR 168 (SC), it was held as follows : " The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situation such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order." 8 This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the learned Magistrate could not be faulted on the ground given by the High Court. 14. Hence, in view of the decision of Supreme Court the decision reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 380, 2010(3)PLJR 851 is not applicable and I do not find any merit in the submission that order of taking cognizance is bad for reason that Magistrate has not stated the fact and reason, hence I do not find any merit to quash the impugned order. 15. Hence, with the above observations/directions, the petition is hereby dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)