IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10 of 2008 BISHWANATH PRASAD SAH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 08. 22.02.2011 Petitioners, being the elder brother of the husband, his wife and children, have challenged the order of cognizance dated 08.02.2005 as well as the entire prosecution of the Complaint Case No. C-691 of 2004 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the complaint only the elder brother of the husband and his family members have been made accused in which the father and brother of petitioner No. 1 are witnesses. It is alleged that on 13.10.2004 the petitioner No. 1 came into the house in intoxicated condition and abused and assaulted the complainant. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to the effect that petitioners reside at Jaigaon, West Bengal where they are voters and the children of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 studying there. It is submitted that the documents brought on record suggest that there was some dispute with regard to the property between petitioner No. 1 and his parents as well as with his other brothers hence as a retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged. Annexure-13 reflects that Section 144 proceeding was also initiated between the parties before Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Alipurduar. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant also resides at Jaigaon, West Bengal and no cause of action arose in the State of Bihar. It is submitted that since the complainant does not reside in Bihar, that is the reason why complainant has not appeared before learned Court below after cognizance was taken. Notices were issued in the present proceeding to O.P. No. 2 vide order dated 09.04.2010 and in spite of valid service of notice, none is appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to the effect that the matter has not progressed after cognizance stage. Complainant in paragraph No. 1 of the complaint petition has admitted that her husband has a shop at Jaigaon, West Bengal and she seldom used to come to her village home. The main dispute is with regard to investment in the shop of complainant’s husband at Jaigaon, West Bengal. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State and on perusal of the records, it appears that due to the land dispute the present case has been filed only against the elder brother of the husband and his family. Prima facie, it appears that neither the petitioners nor the O.P. No. 2 reside in the State of Bihar. From the documents on record, it also appears that for settling the property dispute, the present complaint has been filed. Moreover, it appears that the Court of Bihar has no territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that no part of occurrence appears to have occurred in the State of Bihar. It appears that complainant has no interest in pursuing the case and that is the reason she is neither appearing before the learned Court below nor here, hence the contentions of the petitioners remain un rebutted. In the circumstances the continuation of the proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence in the interest of justice, the order of cognizance dated 08.02.2005 as well as the entire prosecution of Complaint Case No. C-691 of 2004, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sikrahna at Motihari are hereby quashed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)