Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 942 (JHR)

Kishore Kumar Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-08

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
ORDER Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learnedcounsel for O.P.No.2 and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in this application is to quash the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 20/06/2007, taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 498 A, 380/34 IPC. 3. The complainant O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint petition in the court of ACJM, Rajmahal, Sahebganj, alleging therein that on 06/03/1992, her marriage was performed according to Hindu religion with Kishore Kumar Bhagat (Petitioner no. 1). In the marriage, her father gave gold and silver ornaments and her husband was given Rs. 65,000/-plus price of a Scooter, i.e. Rs. 26,000/-apart from the wrist watch and clothes etc. After the marriage, the complainant started residing in her matrimonial home at Bhagalpur. After passing a few years, the accused persons started pressurizing the complainant to ask her parents to give a Motorcycle to her husband, which was fulfilled and her brother gave a Motorcycle to her husband. She further alleged that the accused persons again started pressurizing her and her father to fulfill their further demands of dowry and when the same was not met, the complainant was ill treated and tortured by them. She alleged that all the accused persons not only beaten her but also tried to kill her by pouring Kerosene Oil on her body but any how she could save herself. In course of time, she also gave birth to a male child but the accused persons did not stop torturing and ill treating her and ultimately she and her son were driven out from the matrimonial home then she returned to her parents’ house. At that time her son was only aged about 10 years. The complainant further alleged that in the year 2006, her brother again reached her to her matrimonial home on 01/12/2006. At that time her son was staying with her parents. After a week, the accused persons again started demanding Rs. 1,50,000/-and when the complainant showed her inability, the accused persons again started beating and torturing her in various ways and, ultimately, she had to return to her parents house on 20/12/2006. On 10/02/2007, the complainant again went to her in-laws place to attend the Shradh Ceremony of Ram Bilash Bhagat one of the relative. 1,50,000/-and when the complainant showed her inability, the accused persons again started beating and torturing her in various ways and, ultimately, she had to return to her parents house on 20/12/2006. On 10/02/2007, the complainant again went to her in-laws place to attend the Shradh Ceremony of Ram Bilash Bhagat one of the relative. The said Shradh ceremony was also attended by her brother, who came at her in-laws place on 21/02/2007. After the Shradh was over on 22/02/2007, the accused persons again started demanding Rs. 1,50,000/-from the brother of the complainant and on non-fulfillment thereof, they again started beating the complainant badly and they told her brother that unless this demand is fulfilled, the complainant would not be allowed to stay in her in-laws place. She further alleged that the accused persons snatched her gold ear-rings and, ultimately, she returned to her parents’ house with her brother on 23/02/2007 where she was also treated by a doctor. 4. After registration of the complaint, the ACJM, Rajmahal, Sahebganj transferred the case to the Court of SDJM, Rajmahal for enquiry and trial. An enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted by the SDJM, Sahebganj and then finding a prima-facie case, the cognizance under Section 498 A, 380 and 34 IPC was taken against the accused persons and summons were issued against them. 5. The petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution against them on the ground that the court at Rajmahal within the District of Sahebganj had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to take cognizance for the offence alleged since no part of the offence as alleged by the complainant took place at Rajmahal in the District of Sahebganj. 6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the allegations regarding the offence alleged were allegedly committed at Bhagalpur, i.e. within the State of Bihar and not at Rajmahal within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the Court at Rajmahal (Sahebganj) had no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and to take cognizance of the offence alleged. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the allegations regarding the offence alleged were allegedly committed at Bhagalpur, i.e. within the State of Bihar and not at Rajmahal within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the Court at Rajmahal (Sahebganj) had no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and to take cognizance of the offence alleged. Mr. Mazumdar, by relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of “Y.Abraham Ajith & Others-versus-Inspector of Police, Chennain and Another, reported in (2004) 8 SCC, 100” and in the case of “Bhura Ram & Others-versus-State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2008 (3) JLJR (SC) 287, has submitted that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has held that the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court, where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of the offence was committed. 7. Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 very fairly conceded that no part of the occurrence alleged in the complaint, was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajmahal (Sahebganj) and, therefore, the decisions of the Supreme Court are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. From the facts stated herein above, it is clear that the ACJM, Rajmahal or the SDJM, Rajmahal in the district of Sahebganj did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case of the complainant since no part of the cause of action arose in the said district and, therefore, the SDJM, Rajmahal, who took the cognizance of the offence, had no territorial jurisdiction to do so. Consequently, this application is allowed. The criminal prosecution against the petitioners, which is now pending before the SDJM, Rajmahal in the District of Sahebganj is hereby quashed. 9. Let the complaint petition be returned to the complainant so that, if so advised, she may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Thus this application stands disposed of.