Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 79 (PAT)

Pappu Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-11

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Madurendu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner who was one of the aqcused of Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2005 under Sections 498-A/307/379/342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of learned Sessions judge, Bhojpur at Ara through this application seeks the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings on the ground that the Ara Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the said Sessions Trial since no cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ara Court. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Ara Court and part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nalanda Court and as such in view of Sec.177 Cr.PC. the Ara Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the aforesaid Sessions Trial. 4. The entire submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived. It is apparent from a perusal of the fardbeyan which forms the very basis of the Sessions Trial that the marriage took place at village-Bakharian within the Ara (Muffasil Police Station and the bridegroom party belonged to the village Malwa within the Hilsa Police Station in the District of Nalanda. It is also apparent that soon after the marriage the demand in the form of a motorcycle and a Godrej Almirah were made by way of dowry. It also appears that after the marriage the informant Nitu Devi went to village Malwa where she was subjected to torture for non-fulfilment of the demand of motorcycle and the Godrej Almirah and she was also threatened with dire consequences. Again in 1997 when she returned to her marital home she was again subjected to torture and harassment for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand and on 5.8.1997 she was forcibly administered mercury and was also made to sign on some blank papers and having confiscated all her Stri-dhan she was brought to Patna under the pretext of being treated for her ailment and she was deserted at the Patna Junction. Eventually one of her co-villagers identified her and she was brought home by her father. 5. Eventually one of her co-villagers identified her and she was brought home by her father. 5. From the aforesaid fardbeyan, it would appear that initially demand of dowry was made at Bakharian within the jurisdiction of Ara (Muffasil) Police Station in the District of Bhojpur at Ara and subsequently demands as also the torture of Nitu Devi took place within the jurisdiction of Nalanda Court. In that view of the matter whereas the initially part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in the District of Bhojpur at Ara subsequent parts of cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Nalanda and in that view of the matter it were the provisions of Sec.178 Cr.PC. which would apply and not Sec.177 Cr.PC. 6. Having applied the provisions of Sec.178 Cr.RC. the Bhojpur Court did have the jurisdiction to try this case arising from the fardbeyan of the informant Nitu Devi. Accordingly, there is no illegality in trial proceeding in the Ara Court. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed.