Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 473 (JHR)

Vikas Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 932 of 2015, including the order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/ss. 498-A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 being C.P. Case No. 228 of 2014 which ended in a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation made in the subsequent complaint do not reveal any occurrence having taken place in the District of Bokaro and, therefore, the court at Bokaro does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the opposite party no. 2 was taken away by her relatives the case was instituted by the husband of the opposite party no. 2, which also ended in a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 has also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights much prior to the institution of the complaint case. It has thus been submitted that the entire scenario reveals malicious prosecution in the part of the complainant in implicating the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that earlier a Complaint Case No. 228 of 2014 was instituted which subsequently ended on a compromise on certain terms and conditions. Since the terms and conditions arrived at the Mediation Centre was not adhered to as per the Version of the complainant therefore a complaint case was filed being C.P. Case No. 932 of 2015 in which the incident which had happened after she was taken back to her matrimonial house has been described. Since the terms and conditions arrived at the Mediation Centre was not adhered to as per the Version of the complainant therefore a complaint case was filed being C.P. Case No. 932 of 2015 in which the incident which had happened after she was taken back to her matrimonial house has been described. Merely because the earlier complaint case ended in a compromise the subsequent complaint case even if, the allegation after the compromise relates to Chapra in the district of Bihar would not preclude the court at Bokaro to try the offence as alleged as in the earlier complaint there was a specific allegation, of some acts being committed within the district of Bokaro. The learned court below taking cognizance has also dealt with the evidence of the witnesses in course of inquiry u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. and had come to a finding that the occurrence have taken place both at Chapra as well as within the district of Bokaro. 6. Since there appears to be a prima facie allegation against the petitioners of committing torture upon the opposite party no. 2 in spite of entering into a compromise and since the court at Bokaro does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case, no interference is necessitated in the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.