Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 304 (PAT)

Uday Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-02-22

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Bal Mukund Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. At the very outset, it was submitted by learned counsel far the petitioners that during the pendency, of the present petition, petitioner No.2 has already died. However, no petition to this effect has been filed. 3. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order, which was passed long back on 01.04.2008, by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur in Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 54/04/G.R.No.248/04. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 34/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has argued that in the present case, major and final portion of offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court at Saran and only part, of cause of action arose within the district of Samastipur and, as such, learned Magistrate at Samastipur was not having territorial jurisdiction to pass order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner No. 3 is the wife of brother of petitioner No.1, who was husband of the victim girl. However, he does not dispute the fact that she was also residing with the victim at Saran, where major offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in 2012 (2) EastCrC 34 (SC) : 2010 (4) PLJR (SC) 26, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., and submits that on the ground of territorial jurisdiction itself the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution side. He further submits that the victim died in course of treatment and, as such, offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have gone through the materials on record. It was further submitted that no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution side. He further submits that the victim died in course of treatment and, as such, offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have gone through the materials on record. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners admits that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a Court at Samastipur, the order of cognizance cannot be set aside on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The fact remains that initially a complaint was filed, which was referred to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter F.I.R vide Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2004, G.R No. 248/04 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B, 34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. After registering the F.I.R the police investigated the case and chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the basis of perusal of the case diary and materials on record has passed the order of cognizance. 6. I do not find any defect in the order either on merit or on the territorial ground. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. . Petition dismissed.