Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1016 (PAT)

Amit Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2012-07-24

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated.5.6.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Complaint Case No.1051-C of 2005 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for dismissal of the complaint on account of jurisdictional error has been rejected and also for quashing the order dated 3-.12.2010 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Cr. Revision No.233 of 2010 by which revision application has been rejected and the order of the court below has been affirmed. 3. In this case basically the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of Nalanda court for taking cognizance in the case as counsel for the petitioners has raised grievance that all alleged action as per the complaint petition has taken place within territorial jurisdiction of Gaya court and as such the order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate and affirmance of the same by the sessions court is completely illegal. 4. From the record it appears that earlier the case was also filed by the complainant against the petitioners within jurisdiction of Nalanda court which ended into compromise between the parties and subsequently again the complainant was treated with cruelty which led to filing of the present case. 5. From the averment made in the complaint petition it appears that the marriage was solemnized between the complainant with one Amit Kumar on 25.5.1998 in accordance with Hindu rites. At the time of marriage a Hero Honda Motor cycle and Rs.50,000/- cash was demanded whereas father of the complainant had given jwellery of gold at the time of marriage details of which has been mentioned in the complaint petition. But demand of Rs.50,000/- and motor cycle could not be fulfilled. Assurance was given for giving the same in near future. After solemnization of the marriage the complainant had gone to her in-laws place where after some time she was misbehaved by the accused persons. Every time the complainant used to be teased for non-payment of dowry which caused mental torture to her. As parents of the complainant could not pay Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda motor cycle and as such second marriage could not be performed for eight years. Every time the complainant used to be teased for non-payment of dowry which caused mental torture to her. As parents of the complainant could not pay Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda motor cycle and as such second marriage could not be performed for eight years. But after great pursuasion the second marriage was performed on 9.2.1999 but at that time the accused persons have reiterated the demand of Hero Honda motor cycle and Rs.50,000/- as well. The allegation has been made by the complainant that she was badly treated even though they were not providing full meal to her which caused her illness. In course of time, the complainant conceived a child, when the accused persons could know about the aforesaid fact they pressurised her to do more arduous work with an intention to harass her. In the month of August, 1999 the accused persons expelled the complainant and has snatched all ornament and jwellery with the threat that unless they would be paid Rs.50,000/- and Hero Honda motor cycle she would not be allowed to enter into her in-laws place. The complainant returned to the Maike and parents tried their best to convince them to keep the complainant but they remain adamant to their demand. It has been further alleged that Amit Kumar, Arjun Prasad,, Mathura Prasad and Anand Kumar came to her house on 15.12.1999 in a hope that their demand would be fulfilled. But her father could not arrange the money which annoyed them and told the complainant side that Amit Kumar would arrange second marriage. The complainant looking to the situation filed a Complaint Case No. 1043 of 1999 and on the assurance of the petitioner’s side the matter was settled by Lok Adalat and in terms of settlement on account of compromise the aforesaid complaint case was disposed of. As per settlement the complainant would be treated in a proper manner and would be kept in a proper security and dignity. The case ended into compromise. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that complainant was treated in a proper manner for six months and thereafter perpetration of torture started. It has been further alleged that they used to create a situation of horror and also used to beat her giving a threatening to burn her alive. The case ended into compromise. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that complainant was treated in a proper manner for six months and thereafter perpetration of torture started. It has been further alleged that they used to create a situation of horror and also used to beat her giving a threatening to burn her alive. They not only tortured the complainant but also her daughter was treated very badly as they tried to make her mad. The accused persons tried to prove that the complainant was a ailing lady and for which they manufactured prescriptions of the Doctor. As per allegation made in the complaint petition that the complainant used to be confined in a room for day and night with an intention to make her mad and number of methods were adopted with a view to get another marriage of Amit Kumar and would get huge amount in dowry. The accused persons have tormented and tortured the complainant then her father has filed a written complainant to Women’s Cell and also made a complaint to the police station on 12.9.2005. When no action was taken then the present complaint petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story made in the complaint petition runs into two parts. One is related to a story which has ended into compromise in Complaint Case No.1043 of 1999. Allegation before compromise has been made relates to certain cause of action has taken place in Nalanda but subsequent events that has been mentioned after the compromise in the aforesaid complaint case, no cause of action or part thereof had taken place in the district of Nalanda rather all cause of action has taken place in the district of Gaya and as such while deciding the territorial jurisdiction this Court should confine the events that has taken place after the disposal of Complaint Case No.1043 of 1999. If that be taken, then the court of Nalanda has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and to take cognizance whereas counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is a continuing offence as they were required to comply terms of compromise which was reason for ending of Complaint Case No. 1043 of 1999 and the subsequent event is nothing but a continuation of the earlier events and as such the provision of section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not only apply rather the provision of section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would also apply. 7. In this case admittedly, narration of facts have been stated in two parts. One part related to the events prior to filing of Complaint Case No.1043 of 1999 and subsequent events that have taken place after disposal of the aforesaid case. But the subsequent events have connecting thread with the earlier events made in the aforesaid complaint petition. It is a fact that the complainant has gone to her in-laws place only on the assurance given by the accused persons and later on earlier assurance was violated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on three judgments, namely, (i) Naresh Prasad Singh Naresh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2010(4) P.L.J.R. 759 paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 16 (ii) Prannath Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2007(4) B.B.C.J. 447 and (iii) Md. Kalim & Ors. Vs. The state of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2009(1) B.B.C.J. 540 SC whereas learned counsel for the complainant in support of his contention has relied on judgment in the case of The State of Bihar Vs. Md. Sahebjan, reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 191 . 9. Having considered rival contention of the parties, the basic issue that has to be decided by this Court as to whether Nalanda court has territorial jurisdiction in the matter or not as the aforesaid judgment that has been cited by the petitioners shows that if no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court then that court can not take cognizance. There is no dispute in the proposition of law that if no cause of action has taken place in that circumstance certainly the court of Nalanda has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. There is no dispute in the proposition of law that if no cause of action has taken place in that circumstance certainly the court of Nalanda has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. But in the present case it would appear that the present case is the consequences of earlier complaint petition. In the earlier complaint petition the parties have entered into compromise on the basis of agreement that the complainant would be treated comfortably with due care and dignity. The complainant was treated in a proper way only for six months and thereafter drama again started. The subsequent events are connecting thread to the earlier events and if that be so then in that circumstance the jurisdiction Nalanda court can not be ousted. As the subsequent events has close connectivity and proximity with earlier events and as such Nalanda court has rightly taken cognizance and the same has been affirmed by the revisional court i.e. sessions court. 10. Gaya and Nalanda are contiguous districts and the husband who is better placed having better resources can contest the case at Nalanda where as the poor wife would feel difficulty in prosecuting her case at Gaya. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly this application is dismissed.