Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1518 (JHR)

Prakash Chandra Das v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 02/2014 including the order dated 12.11.2014, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Bokaro, by which, cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court at Bokaro does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case because the entire occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the district of Saraikella. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are the husband, parents in law as well as brother in law and sister in law of the informant and no specific allegations have been levelled against them. It has also been submitted that cognizance order is itself a cryptic order, which does not assign any reason as to the materials which have been collected in course of investigation. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It appears in the F.I.R. that there is an allegation that in the Family Counseling Center, Bokaro, accused had appeared and refused to take away the informant and had also disclosed about threatening, which was given to the informant. That itself is sufficient to bring the court at Bokaro to have territorial jurisdiction to try the case. So far as allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioners are concerned, the same are palpable from the FIR itself. As regards the order taking cognizance is concerned, it appears that after investigation, chargesheet was submitted and on perusal of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial. Apparently, no illegality has been committed by the cognizance taking court by order dated 12.11.2014 and in view of the discussions, which have been made hereinabove, I do not find a fit case to cause interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.