Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 830 (JHR)

Md. Azimuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-18

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By this Court - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No.1174 of 2009 including the order 20.11.2009 passed by the then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From perusal of the record, it does appear that a complaint case was lodged alleging therein that after marriage, the complainant started living with the accused No.1 (petitioner) at village Ahardih, district Bokaro. In course of time, one son and one daughter begotten out of wedlock of the complainant and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner in search of his livelihood, went Mumbai where he started doing business. Since, the petitioner picked up a good business at Mumbai, he intended to marry another woman. When the complainant came to know, she did oppose it, but the petitioner and other accused persons in order to get rid off this complainant, started subjecting her to torture. Ultimately, the petitioner did marry another woman and started living with her. 4. Further case is that on 05.05.2009, when the petitioner along with other accused came to Village Ahardih on the eve of the marriage of the son of the accused no.9, the petitioner and other accused persons assaulted the complainant badly and then she was dragged out of the house. 5. On such allegation, the complaint was registered as C.P. Case No.1174 of 2009. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance, vide its order dated 20.11.2009, which is under challenge. 6. 5. On such allegation, the complaint was registered as C.P. Case No.1174 of 2009. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance, vide its order dated 20.11.2009, which is under challenge. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whatever overt acts constituting offence have been alleged to have been committed it were committed at Village Ahardih, district Bokaro whereas the case has been lodged at Dhanbad and, therefore, the court at Dhanbad had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as no cause of action, according to the allegation made in the complaint, had ever accrued at Dhanbad and on this ground alone, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [ (2008) 11 SCC 103 (SC)] and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police [ (2004) 8 SCC 100 ]. 7. It be stated that in spite of service of notice, the Opp. Party No.2 did not choose to appear in this case. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on going through the record, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 9. From perusal of the complaint, it does appear that whatever overt act have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, all those have been committed at Village Ahardih situated within the district of Bokaro whereas the case has been lodged in the court at Dhanbad though no cause of action had ever accrued to the complainant at Dhanbad and hence, the court at Dhanbad will have no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance. 10. Accordingly, the order 20.11.2009 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is hereby quashed, in view of the decisions rendered in cases referred to above, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court, where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. 11. However, the complainant-opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to invoke the provision as contained in Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by approaching the court to get the complaint returned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. 11. However, the complainant-opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to invoke the provision as contained in Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by approaching the court to get the complaint returned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. If resort is made to that provision, necessary order be passed. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.