Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 326 (JHR)

Deepak Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-27

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of P.C.R. Case No.534 of 2009 including the order dated 03.11.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda whereby and whereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, who happen to be the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and maternal uncle of the complainant. 3. From perusal of the record, it does appear that a complaint case was lodged at Godda by the complainant/Opp. Party No.2, alleging therein that she had been married to the petitioner No.1-Deepak Kumar Jha in the year 2007. After the marriage, while she was being taken to her in-laws place at Gurgaon, Haryana, the husband misbehaved indecently with her. When she reached Gurgaon, she was not only neglected rather humiliated regularly by the accused persons. When their parents, came to see her, they were also humiliated and manhandled. It has also been alleged that the accused persons used to put forth demand of Rs.5 Lac. In order to get the demand fulfilled, she was being subjected to torture. 4. On such allegation, the complaint was registered as P.C.R. Case No.534 of 2009. Thereafter the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. During enquiry, two witnesses were examined. Thereupon the court vide order dated 03.11.2009 has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. 4. On such allegation, the complaint was registered as P.C.R. Case No.534 of 2009. Thereafter the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. During enquiry, two witnesses were examined. Thereupon the court vide order dated 03.11.2009 has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Shri Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that whatever overt acts, constituting offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, has been alleged to have been committed, it were committed at Gurgaon, Haryana whereas the case has been lodged at Godda, Jharkhand and, therefore, the court at Godda, has 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 Godda 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 ] : 2005 (1) JCR 15 (SC). 6. However, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that after cognizance of the offence was taken, the case was fixed for adducing evidence by the complainant before charge and, thereby, this is not a fit stage for quashing of the order taking cognizance. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and on going through the record, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 8. From perusal of the complaint, it does appear that whatever overt acts have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, all those have been committed at Gurgaon, Haryana whereas the case has been lodged in the court at Godda, Jharkhand, though no cause of action had ever accrued to the complainant at Godda and hence, the court at Godda will have no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance. 9. 9. Accordingly, the order 03.11.2009 passed in P.C.R. Case No.534 of 2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda 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 have jurisdiction of the case and not the court where no cause of action has ever accrued. 10. 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. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands allowed.