Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1077 (PAT)

Deo Pati Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-03

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report as well as entire proceeding in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.207 of 1992 (G.R. Case No.1566 of 1992) pending in the court of Sri S.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur at Vaishali. 2. Short fact of the case is that an F.I.R. i.e. Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.207 of 1992 was registered on the basis of a complaint petition, which was filed by Opp.Party no.2 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur at Vaishali. The Complaint petition was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.207 of 1992 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was alleged that the daughter of Opp.Party No.2, namely, Vimal Kishori was married to the petitioner no.3. It was alleged that after the marriage, there was demand of dowry and thereafter the daughter of the informant was compelled to leave the house of her in-laws. Subsequently, on persuasion of well-wishers, accused persons took daughter of the Opp.Party no.2 after "vidagiri" and again thereafter demand was made and threatening was also given to the informant. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the same and chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioners. In the case, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after framing of the charge, one prosecution witness was examined. However, after stay was granted by this Court by its order dated 6.1.2000, no progress had taken place in the case before the Magistrate. 3. Sri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his argument that the entire prosecution is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Alternatively, he has argued that on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the case may be transferred from the court of Vaishali to the court within the jurisdiction of Saran. Alternatively, he has argued that on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the case may be transferred from the court of Vaishali to the court within the jurisdiction of Saran. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the cause of action in the present case arose within the jurisdiction of the district Saran and, as such, even investigation should have been transferred to the Police Station of Saran district, but while committing irregularity police submitted chargesheet to a court in the district of Vaishali. On this ground, he has prayed for either quashing of the entire proceeding or for transfer of the case to the district of Saran. 4. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that the F.I.R. itself indicates that at least part of the cause of action arose in the district of Vaishali at Hajipur and on this ground she submits that if in a case where part of the cause of action arose within two districts, the complaint or F.I.R. can be lodged in either of the districts and, as such, no illegality has been committed in the proceeding with the present case in the court of Vaishali. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as certified copy of the F.I.R., which has been enclosed with the present case. In the last paragraph of the F.I.R. it has been stated that accused persons had given threatening at the door of the complainant and, as such, without further delving into the matter I am satisfied that in this case even part of cause of action arose in the district of Vaishali and, as such, no relief can be granted in the present case. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 6. In this case by order dated 6.1.2000. while admitting this case, the court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in G.R. Case No.1566 of 1992 arising out Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.207 of 1992 pending in the court below shall remain stayed. 7. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. while admitting this case, the court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in G.R. Case No.1566 of 1992 arising out Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.207 of 1992 pending in the court below shall remain stayed. 7. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. In view of the fact that the proceedings in the court below remained stayed for more than ten years by an order of this Court, it would be appropriate to direct the learned court below to expedite the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the court below is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.