Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 370 (PAT)

Md. Alauddin v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-19

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard 2. This application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by Shri C.M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 79 of 2005 thereby and thereunder the court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Secs. 498A, 307, 406/34 of the I.P.C 3. In course of submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order mainly on the point of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that all occurrence of torture etc. alleged to be taken place in the matrimonial house of the victim which falls within Phulwarisharif P.S., Patna, whereas the case was lodged before Khagaul P.S. which falls in Danapur Sub Division. Therefore, neither the police of Khagaul P.S. had power to register for investigate the case nor, the court of Darapur had power to take cognizance upon such investigation. For that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the High Court reported in 2004(4) BBCJ 220 4. However, on perusal of the complaint-cum-fardbeyan it appears that it is a case of continuing offence. Therefore, this case falls within sec. 78 of the Cr.P.C. and not u/s. 177 Cr.p.c. In page-5 of the complaint petition, it has been alleged that while the victim was getting treatment in the house of her sister situated within Khagaul P.S., the complainant came stopped treatment and forcibly took away to his house 5. sec. 178 Cr.P.C. runs as follows: Place of inquiry or trial.- (a)when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts cone in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas 6. From above provision, it is quite clear that in case of continuing offence, case can be instituted inquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. In this case, both the court of Danapur as well as Patna have jurisdiction to inquire and try the case. There is no illegality in the impugned order 7. From above provision, it is quite clear that in case of continuing offence, case can be instituted inquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. In this case, both the court of Danapur as well as Patna have jurisdiction to inquire and try the case. There is no illegality in the impugned order 7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this application is hereby rejected.