IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24107 of 2007 SHYAM PRASAD @ SHAYAM PRASAD YADAVA Son of Ram Swaroop Yadav @ Tanuk Lal Yadav, Resident of Village- Mathar, P.S.- Khagaria, District- Khagaria --------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sweety Devi D/o Lakshami Deo Resident of Village- Shankarpur, P.S.- Maffasil, District- Munger ----------------Opposite Parties. ----------- 8. 9.7.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the address of the petitioner in the application. Notices were issued in this case and the opposite party appeared through their counsel, however, when the case was called out nobody appeared to represent the opposite party no. 2. This application has been filed against the order dated 23.3.2005 by which the S.D.J.M. Sadar, Munger District- Munger has taken cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The only question that has been raised by the petitioner is that the occurrence if any took place at District Khagaria whereas the complaint petition has been filed in Munger. Referring to the complaint petition learned counsel submits that at the time of the first ‘Bidagari’ when the opposite party Uncle (Mama) came to take her, he was informed that the girl should come to her husband’s house with Rs. one lakh and a motorcycle. The next part of the occurrence is when the opposite party’s family went to the village home of the petitioner and tried to bring about a settlement, there was a demand made by opposite party’s family. This demand was also made within the district of Khagaria. The third part of the allegation is that there was panchayat held at Khagaria when the petitioner’s family learnt that the opposite party no. 2 was - 2 - planning to re-marry again. The Panchayat is said to have ended disastrously and there was an allegation that abusive words were hurled and used by the petitioner and his family. It is therefore submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence and the demand of dowry took place at Khagaria and not at Munger and the Court of Munger has no jurisdiction to institute a complaint and ought to have sent it to the Court at Khagaria for institution of the case. Reference has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2004 SC 4286 wherein the Supreme Court has held that where the factual position discloses that the complainant had herself left the house and while leaving the house, a demand of dowry was made and at no time there was any demand made while she is at her parents home then it cannot be said that the demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence under Section 498A took place at the parents home. In the present case as pointed out the demand of dowry was made at Khagaria and such the case ought to have been filed at Khagaria and the Court at Munger has no jurisdiction to try the case. In view of the judgment in the aforesaid case, I quash the order of cognizance dated 23.3.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 1071C/2004. However, I make it clear that the complainant would always have the right to seek remedy before the appropriate Court. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)