Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 54 (PAT)

Kunti Devi v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-16

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the entire proceeding including the order dated 12-8-2004 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bihar Sharif taking cognizance against the petitioners u/s. 307, 323 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 539 (C) of 2003. 2. The submissions of the learned Counsel for quashing the order are two fold. His first submission is that the perusal of the entire complaint petition would show that there is no ingredient of Secs. 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the order, taking cognizance in the case, is bad for lack of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he referred to Secs. 177 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the submissions and referred to Secs. 460 and 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the filing of a case in the district where no part of occurrence has taken place is an irregularity and would not vitiate the proceeding. He further submitted that Sec. 462 Cr. P.C. provides that no finding, sentence or order of any criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the enquiry, trial or other proceedings in the Courts of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions, division, district, sub-division or other local area unless it appears that such order in fact has occasioned a failure of justice. But there is nothing to show that any miscarriage of justice was caused to the petitioner. He further submitted that there is allegation in the complaint that the petitioners assaulted O.P. No. 2 and tried to strangulate to death. Therefore, the complaint petition clearly disclosed offence under Secs. 323, 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and even if it be assumed that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose an offence u/s. 504 I.P.C, for that matter the impugned order cannot be set aside. The petitioners can raise this objection during trial. 4. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the complaint petition and the impugned order, 1 agree with the submissions of the A.P.P. that even if no part of occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned C.J.M., in view of sec. The petitioners can raise this objection during trial. 4. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the complaint petition and the impugned order, 1 agree with the submissions of the A.P.P. that even if no part of occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned C.J.M., in view of sec. 460(e)(f) read with Sec. 462, the impugned order taking cognizance and issuing processes against the petitioner would not be bad. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate has ordered to issue summons against the petitioners for facing trial under Secs. 323, 307, 504 Indian Penal Code, 1860 The allegations in the complaint clearly disclosed that the petitioners assaulted O.P. No. 2 and tried to murder her by strangulation. Therefore, there is sufficient allegation against the petitioners for commission, at least for the offence under Secs. 323, 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Under such circumstances, I do not think that, it is a fit case in which the impugned order or the proceedings of the case can be quashed. 5. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.