Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 26 (JHR)

Manohar Saba @ Mohan Saba v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-04

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the informant-opposite party No. 2 lodged a case at Dumka alleging therein that after the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner's son, she came to her in-law's place at Village-Sangrampur. Distt-Saheb-ganj, where she was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. When the matter was informed by her to her parents, her father came and took the matter for panchayati where a decision was taken directing the petitioner to keep opposite party No. 2 properly. Accordingly the petitioners kept the informant properly for some days but thereafter the petitioner and petitioners', son started subjecting her to cruelty again. 2. Further case is that the other day the husband asked her to bring Rs.50.000/- as dowry. failing which he will marry another girl and then she was driven out of the house. 3. On such complaint Muffasil P.S. Case No. 113 of 2008 was registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against these petitioners and other accused persons including the husband. 4. The said prosecution is being challenged before this Court on the ground that the cause of action never accrued at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of Dumka and as such. the prosecution gets vitiated by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deais with the place of enquiry or trial and therefore entire prosecution is fit to be set aside and that if the complainant intends to me a fresh complaint she• may me it in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Am.. 2008 (4) East, Cr C 86 (SC). 5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that from the averment made in the First Information. Report it does appear that cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the district Sahebganj, but the case has been lodged at Dumka but on that ground the proceeding cannot be quashed, rather it would be appropriate and proper that the matter be referred to a competent Court at Rajmahal. 6. Report it does appear that cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the district Sahebganj, but the case has been lodged at Dumka but on that ground the proceeding cannot be quashed, rather it would be appropriate and proper that the matter be referred to a competent Court at Rajmahal. 6. It is true that the Honble Supreme Court in a case referred to above quashed the entire criminal proceeding as no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which had taken cognizance, but at the same time order was passed giving liberty to the complainant for filing complaint before an appropriate Court if he wishes to do so. Here in the, instant case, it was stated on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that the complainant is very much interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioner and as such, instead of quashing tile proceeding, it would be appropriate in view of the decision rendered in a case of Manish Ratan and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. 2007 (1) SCC, to transfer Muffasil P.S. Case No. 113 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1072 of 2008 (T.R. No. 762 of 2011) pending in the Court of S.D.J.M. Dumka to the Court of S.D.J.M., Rajmahal so that he may proceed with tile case. Accordingly by exercising power under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. the case is ordered to be transferred from the Court of S.D.J.M., Dumka to the Court of S.D.J.M., Rajmahal. 7. Thus, this application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.