Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1049 (PAT)

Babban Maurya v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasararn, by which he has held that territorial jurisdiction lies with the Court situated at Sasararn. The petitioners have contended that since the occurrence has taken place at Ballia (in the State of U. P.) and because he is resident of Ballia (in the State of U. P.) the territorial jurisdiction would be within the Courts at Ballia. 3. The question which is to be determined is where the trial should be held. Sec.177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : "All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed. Therefore, where it is alleged that the crime is committed in more than one place then it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas." 4. The law being quite clear on the subject, I shall proceed to examine the complaint petition. 5. In the complaint petition the allegations are that Sabita Devi, daughter of the complainant Ram Ashish Singh was married to Santosh Kumar Maurya. After her marriage, she was being tortured and there was a demand of Jeep otherwise she would be killed. When Sabita Devi was in the matrimonial home she was assaulated and deprived of all basic comforts of life and all time she was told that her life could be in danger if her lather did not succeed to make payment. It is relevant to state here that matrimonial home was at Ballia. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence took place at Ballia. In this context it would be relevant to quote two paragraphs of the complaint petition. 7. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that part of the occurrence took place at Sasaram (Rohtas) in the village of the informant and part of the occurrence took place at Ballia (U. P.). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 : (2004 Cri LJ 4180). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 : (2004 Cri LJ 4180). In this case the Apex Court came to a finding that "all the allegations which are per se without any basis took place at Nagacoil and thereafter, the Courts at Chennai did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter." It would be relevant to quote paragraphs-14, 15, 16, 17, & 18 of the case Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. which explain the concept of cause of action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Para-14. "It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a Court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would rise." Para-15. "The expression "cause of action" has acquired ajudicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action". Para-16. "The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts." Para-17. Para-16. "The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts." Para-17. "The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. In Blacks Law Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.), the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf." Para-18., "In Halsburys Law of England (4th Edn.) it, has been stated as follows : " Cause of action has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. Cause of action has also been taken to mean that a particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action". 9. Now applying the bundle of facts to the law to the present case it is quite clear the the offences were distributed to both the pleas i.e. Sasaram and Ballia. 9. Now applying the bundle of facts to the law to the present case it is quite clear the the offences were distributed to both the pleas i.e. Sasaram and Ballia. The offence such as the one which has been enunciated in the complaint petition is a continuous one and the offences merge into each other, so that as they have an effect on the complainant at Sasaram and Savita Devi who was the victim, lived both at Ballia her matrimonial home and is living presently at Sasaram her maternal home. 10. The opposite party on the other hand has relied on a decision of this Court in Ramji Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar reported in 2006(1) PLJR 552 : (2006 Cri LJ 1597). The Court after noticing the decisions of the Apex Court passed in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. V/s. The Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004 Cri LJ 4180), Ramesh V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu (2005 Cr LJ 1732): ( AIR 2005 SC 1989 ) and Sujata Mukherjees case (1997)5 SCC 30 : (1997 Cri LJ 2985) has come to the conclusion that the Court at Patna had jurisdiction to try the case on the basis of the allegations made in the F. I. R. 11. For the reasons stated aforesaid, I come to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, this application is dismissed.