Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1107 (PAT)

Avinash Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2015-08-26

GOPAL PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 03.11.2012, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in Complaint Case No. 563 of 2009 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint case filed by Smt. Archana Devi, opposite party no. 2, alleging therein is that she married with the petitioner on 02.05.2008, and after the marriage she remain in sasural for three months and during the period she lived well in sasural and, thereafter, she was taken to Delhi by her husband and there she was kept by her husband for a month. It is, further, alleged that in Delhi, the brother of the complainant also lived. Further, allegation is that her husband used to demand rupees two lakhs from her brother and her brother gave rupees one lakh to her husband. It is, further, stated that thereafter her husband left her at Purnia and then gone to Delhi alone. It is, further, alleged that her brother has, again, gave rupees fifty thousand to her husband. It is, further, alleged that at the occasion of chhath her brother came to their house at Purnia, then, her husband made a call for money and, then, his brother gave rupees fifteen thousand to her mother-in-law. It is, further, alleged that on 25th December, 2008, all the accused persons demanded rupees two lakhs and a vehicle, then, the complainant, opposite party no. 2, forbid her brother to give money. It is alleged that thereafter the accused persons stopped her food, used to get her sleep out side the house and, further, used to abuse and assault. Thereafter, she informed her parents and when they came, then, she disclosed that the accused persons will kill her and get her husband married with another lady. It has, further, been contended that thereafter she was driven out after assault and her two attaches and gold chain snatched by her nanad (sister-in-law) and mother-in- law, then, she came to maike. 4. It has, further, been contended that thereafter she was driven out after assault and her two attaches and gold chain snatched by her nanad (sister-in-law) and mother-in- law, then, she came to maike. 4. On the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and, thereafter, taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses on the complaint, the process were ordered to be issued against the accused persons for offence under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that taking into consideration the entire act of demand and subjecting cruelty as has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction either at Delhi or Purnia and no part of cause of action has arisen in Katihar, hence, and the Court at Katihar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance and has placed reliance on decisions reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C., 4286 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vrs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.), 2003(4) P.L.J.R., 528 (Lallan Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), 2007(3) P.L.J.R., 269 (Suresh Das Harijan Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), (1997) 5 SCC, 30 (Sujata Mukherjee Vrs. Prashant Mukherjee) and (2007) 1 SCC, 262 (Manish Ratam Vrs. State of Madhaya Pradesh). 6. Perused the complaint. It is apparent that the marriage solemnized in 2008 and it is alleged that after the marriage she was taken to sasural at Purnia and from where the victim was taken to Delhi and so there is allegation of demand and subsequently she was taken back to Purnia and there at Purnia there is allegation of demand that when she asked her brother to not pay further amount, then, she was subjected to cruelty and ultimately there is allegation that she was abused, assaulted and driven out of her matrimonial house. Hence, taking into consideration all the act of torture took place in Purnia or Delhi and finally it is alleged that she left Purnia when she was driven out and then she came to paternal house at Katihar though there is allegation that she was driven out of the house after snatching of her belongings and then she came to her maike, however, there is no whisper or allegation of any act of commission and omission by the husband or her in-laws at Katihar. However, so far the territorial jurisdiction of a Court depends on the place where occurrence or part of occurrence or where the consequence ensured and is tested under Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The word “ordinarily” in Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is apparent that as a general rule the occurrence is to be tried or enquired into at a place where it ordinarily occurs so the word ordinarily means that it is a general principle. However, Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if the occurrence had occurred in several locality in one transaction and it is uncertain in which several localities an offence was committed or where an offence is committed in one locality and partly in another or when the offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas, then, one or when the offence consistent of several acts done in different local area then it may be enquired into and tried by any of the Court within whose jurisdiction the part of occurrence took place in continuity of the occurrence. Hence, Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code is exception to the general rule that an offence can also be enquired or tried in the local areas where the part of the offence has been committed when several acts done in different local areas in commission of the offence. Hence, Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code is exception to the general rule that an offence can also be enquired or tried in the local areas where the part of the offence has been committed when several acts done in different local areas in commission of the offence. However, Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides when an act done and the place where the consequence of act ensues also have the jurisdiction, hence, the three Sections, Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code together injexta position, it is apparent that the general rule is that the offence to be enquired and tried at a place in the local jurisdiction of a Court where it occurred, but, Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code are exception to this general rule that it can also be tried in a place were part of the offence or if the offence consistent of several acts so in several localities, then, the Courts of those local areas also have jurisdiction and, further, Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that Court where the consequence of the act alleged ensued also has jurisdiction. 7. However, here, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the occurrence alleged to have taken place either at Delhi or at Purnia, as per the allegation made, hence, as per Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code the local area in which the occurrence took place has jurisdiction as well as the exception as under Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the area where the part of the occurrence, alleged, occurred. Hence, it can well be said that Court at Delhi and Purnia has got jurisdiction as per Sections 177 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the allegation is that the demands were made at Delhi first then the victim was taken to Purnia where further demand was made and even the victim was assaulted and abused, her belongings were seized at her sasural in Purnia and, then, she was driven out of the sasural and, then, she came to naiher at Katihar. However, no act alleged either of any omission and commission at Katihar has been mentioned in the entire complaint. There is no allegation whatsoever alleged at her naiher in Katihar. 8. However, no act alleged either of any omission and commission at Katihar has been mentioned in the entire complaint. There is no allegation whatsoever alleged at her naiher in Katihar. 8. However, taking into consideration the fact a jurisdiction is required to be tested on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the allegation made that after the marriage she went to sasural and, then, she remain there well for three months, thereafter, she was taken to Delhi and in Delhi a demand was made and, further, she was taken to Purnia at her sasural and, then, a demand was made for rupees two lakhs and vehicle and when she refused, she was subjected to cruelty by abusing, assaulting and then driving out of the matrimonial house and she came to her naiher. 9. However, nothing has been disclosed of any act of commission and omission in the naiher neither she is saying that at Katihar she was kept in sufferings nor there is allegation that she was abused on telephone while she was in naiher and the last act alleged of cruelty at her sasural at Purnia that her belongings were taken. 10. Hence, no allegation at all about the act of cruelty or assault or abuse and even that she was suffering at her naiher has been made in the complaint nor an allegation that any consequence ever ensued at Katihar, hence, if offence either of cruelty or sufferings, as has been mentioned in complaint, to have occurred at Katihar, then, Katihar Court shall have no jurisdiction. Hence, in view of entertaining the complaint either Sections 177, 178 or 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code the jurisdiction of the Court vests and, in this regard, decisions reported in (2014) 12 SCC, 262 (Amrendu Jyoti & Ors. Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) has considered the decisions relied upon by the petitioners (2004) 8 SCC, 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vrs. Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) has considered the decisions relied upon by the petitioners (2004) 8 SCC, 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vrs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.), (2007) 1 SCC, 262 (supra), (1997) 5 SCC, 30 (supra) have also been considered to hold that Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code have no application as neither there is any allegation of occurrence or part of occurrence nor any allegation of consequence having been ensued at Katihar nor part of occurrence even alleged to have been occurred at Katihar Court, hence, I find and hold that the Katihar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 11. However, the lower Court is directed to return the complaint to the complainant and the complainant is at liberty to present the complaint before the appropriate Court. 12. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed.