Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1191 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Hisariya v. State of Bihar

2006-12-05

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the SDJM, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case .No. 1318/2005 whereby and whereunder he issued process against the petitioners for facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code as also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. This is a case of torture both mentally and physically on the person of the complainant as also humiliation etc. The complainant Sangita Devi was married with Anil Kumar Hisariya and her marriage was solemnised after observing the necessary formalities and rituals on 26.1.1999 at Bhagalpur. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are brother and mother respectively of Petitioner No. 1 Anil Kumar Hisariya. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the jurisdiction of the court at Bhagalpur is barred because whatever torture or humiliation for non-fulfilment of dowry demand as alleged to have been committed, took place in the Sasural of Sangita Devi in the district of Sitamarhi and not at Bhagalpur. Secondly, if any dowry demand was made at Bhagalpur on 23.4.2000, it was time barred under the provision of Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (sic-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?) in view of the fact that cognizance order was passed on 18.1.2006. 5. From the complaint petition, it appears that it was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on 26.7.2005. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that such technical ground for objection regarding the continuity of the proceeding are the subject matters for disposed in course of trial and not at this stage and for that the whole proceeding should not be quashed at this stage. 7. Having heard both the sides and the facts of the case as stated in the complaint petition and the materials on record, I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned order. 8. The impugned order is, thus, upheld and the application in turn is dismissed. However, it will remain open for due consideration in the appropriate stage of the trial.