Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 154 (PAT)

Begum Sayeeda @ Sayeeda Khatoon v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-23

ANWAR AHMAD

body2008
Judgment Anwar Ahmad, J. 1. This is an application filed under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of accused Begum Sayeed alias Sayeeda Khatoon for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 671 of 2007 and also the order dated 1st May, 2007 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. 2. Shama Yasmin filed a petition of complaint dated 26.3.2007 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, against her husband Faizy Abdul Quadir and 2 others alleging therein that her brother in law Chaudhary Azizul Hassan of Chaudhary Mohalla, Katihar is issueless. It is alleged that he brought her to his house in her very childhood where she was brought up and educated. It is alleged that he married her with Faizy Abdul Quadir on 17th December, 2003 in his residence at Chaudhary Mohalla, Katihar. After marriage she was brought to the house of her husband at Kolkata. It is alleged that she passed her conjugal life happily but alter the death of her father in law her husband and mother in law compelled her to bring a sum of Rs.20 Lakh from her parents for purchasing a flat. She informed her parents, brother and brother in law Chuadhary Azizul Hassan. She has got two female child presently aged about 2 years and 1 year. For the non fulfillment of demand she was subjected to torture, mentally and physically and lastly on 7th December, 2006 all the accused persons brought her with her two minor daughters at Sealdah Railway Station retaining her ornaments and clothes and boarded her in a train for Kalihar. She reached with her children at Katihar. It is alleged that they asked to bring the aforesaid amount otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in the house and her husband threatened to divorce her and many another girl. She reached with her children at Katihar. It is alleged that they asked to bring the aforesaid amount otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in the house and her husband threatened to divorce her and many another girl. It is alleged that her husband on 4th March, 2007 came to her in the house of her brother in law Chaudhary Azizul Hassan and her brother, a Medical Officer at Katihar Medical College, Katihar and other members of her family went to Kolkata to the house of accused to pacify the matter but the accused persons refused to keep her unless the demand of Rs.20 Lakh is fulfilled. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar after inquiry found a prima facie case under sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act, against the accused persons including the petitioner named in the petition of complaint and ordered for issuance of summons to face trial. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of cognizance the present miscellaneous case has been filed by one of accused Begum Sayeeda who is mother in law of the complainant for quashing the order of cognizance and also for quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case. 5. The learned lawyer for the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the court of Katihar. 6. On the point of jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts, two sections. Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of criminal Procedure are relevant in the present case. Sec. 177 lays down "Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." Sec. 178 lays down "(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 done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 7. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to several decisions on the point of jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiry and trial. Mr. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to several decisions on the point of jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiry and trial. Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of opposite party/complainant also referred to several decisions on the point of jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiry and trial. Both the advocates considering the several decisions referred to by them conceded that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed but where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 8. The learned lawyer for the petitioner referred to the petition of complaint and pointed out that all the allegations levelled in the petition of complaint taking place on different dates have occurred at Kolkata and hence the Court of Katihar has got no jurisdiction. So, he submitted that in the present case the Court of Kolkata has jurisdiction and not the Court of Katihar. He submitted that in the present case, the Court of Katihar has got no jurisdiction and hence the present petition of complaint is not maintainable there. He submitted thut this miscellaneous case be allowed and the order taking cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar and the entire proceeding of the complaint case filed at Katihar be quashed. 9. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party - complainant submits that in para 19 of the petition of complaint it is stated that accused No. 1 (husband) lastly came on 4th December, 2007 to the house of petitioners brother in law Chaudhary Azizul Hassan and her brother namely Dr Ejaj Ahmad who is working as Medical Officer at Katihar Medical College, Katihar and other members of the family went to Kolkata House of the accused to pacify the matter but the accused persons did not agree and flatly refused to keep the petitioner as wife unless the demand of Rs.20 Lakh would be fulfilled. He refers to the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation where she stated that her husband on 4th March, 2007 came to her (at Katihar) where he stated that unless and until a sum of Rs.20 Lakh was brought, he would not keep her and he in the evening went away. He further submits that witnesses also supported this fact. He therefore submits that the jurisdiction of Katihar Court is attracted as it is a continuing offence and it continues to be committed in the Katihar house. He therefore submits that the present case is fit to be dismissed. 10. The learned lawyer fort the petitioner, in reply, submits that the jurisdiction will be decided on the basis of the petition of complaint and not on the basis of the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidence of the witnesses during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, submits that Katihar Court lacks jurisdiction and hence the miscellaneous case be allowed. Considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned lawyers of both sides. As soon as a written report is submitted at the police station or fardbeyan is recorded or a petition of complaint is filed, the jurisdiction is decided as to whether the police station where the written report was submitted or police officer of that police station who recorded the fardbeyan or the court where the petition of complaint was filed, has got jurisdiction to entertain the case or not. The jurisdiction of criminal court is not decided on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation or on the basis of evidence collected during the course of inquiry. So, in the present case the jurisdiction of Criminal Court will be decided on the basis of the complaint filed by opposite party - complainant and not on the basis of the statements of the complainant made on solemn affirmation and evidence of witnesses given during the course of inquiry. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the complaint petition that any demand was made and torture or cruelty was committed for the purpose of fulfillment of demand at Katihar. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the complaint petition that any demand was made and torture or cruelty was committed for the purpose of fulfillment of demand at Katihar. Of course, in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the complainant alleged that when her husband came to her house (at Katihar) on 4th March, 2007, he made a demand of Rs.20 Lakh whereas this allegation of demand is lacking in the petition of complaint. 11. In view of discussions made above, I am of the view that the Court of Katihar has got no jurisdiction in the matter and it is the Court of Kolkata alone which has got jurisdiction. 12. In the result, I find that there is merit in the miscellaneous case and hence it is fit to be allowed. The miscellaneous case is, therefore, allowed.