Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 855 (JHR)

Sunil Bhattacharjee v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-03

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. 2. In the present application, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of cognizance, dated 31.1.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in C/ 1-97 of 2005, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 498A of the I.P.C. was taken against the petitioners and they have been directed to appear and face trial for the said offences. 3. It may be noted that vide the interim order, passed by this Court, the further proceedings in the case pending against the petitioners before the court below have been stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main ground of challenge to the impugned order of cognizance is the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court below in trying the present case. Reading out the contents and the averments as appearing in the complaint petition of the complainant/Opposite Party No.2 and also reading out the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate itself, learned counsel submits that even according to the averments contained in the complaint petition, the entire transactions relating to the alleged acts of cruelly purported to have been meted out by the petitioners to the Opposite Party No.2, is confined only to the matrimonial house of the complainant situated at Bokaro. The lady returned to the house of her parents some time in the year 2005 and there is no such allegation that after her return to her parental house, any of the accused persons, including the husband, had ever visited her at her father's house or had indulged in any such acts of cruelty either physical or mental against the complainant/Opposite Party No.2. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. do lay down the territorial jurisdiction of the courts for taking cognizance and for conducting trial of the offenders and since in the facts and circumstances of the case, no part of the alleged transactions of cruelty having occurred in any area within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below, it could neither have taken cognizance of the offences nor proceeded to conduct trial of the petitioners for the said offences. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 would submit on the contrary that the allegations as appearing in the complaint petition would also indicate that on account of the ill-treatment meted out to the Opposite Party No. 2 by her husband and in-laws including the present petitioners, the father of the lady had committed suicide. Learned counsel submits that the cruel acts of the petitioners has resulted in such catastrophe,. which had caused acute mental agony to the complainant/Opposite Party No.2. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the materials available on record including the impugned order of cognizance, passed by the court below. 7. Even if the submissions of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 would evoke an amount of sympathy but such sympathy in itself would not be of any help, while considering the grounds advanced by the petitioners, particularly the ground of territorial jurisdiction. From perusal of the averments contained in the complaint petition, which also finds reflected in the impugned order of cognizance passed by the court below, it appears that admittedly, the entire transactions relating to the acts of cruelty are confined to the matrimonial house of the complainant at Bokaro and no portion of any such transactions is alleged to have transpired in any such area within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Ghatshila. 8. The provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. would therefore, be attracted and it has to be declared that the learned court below having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case, could not have even taken cognizance of any of the offences against the petitioners. 9. Under the circumstances, this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance, dated 31.1.2006 and the entire criminal proceedings, pending against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila vide C/1-97/05, is hereby quashed. The complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 shall however, be at liberty to seek remedy for her grievances, if any, against the petitioners before the appropriate court.