- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioners in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the impugned order of cognizance dated 22.03.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Giridih in Complaint Case No. 99 of 2007 (T.R. Case No. 1052 of 2007) whereby cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners and summons were issued against them directing them to face trial in this case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the admitted facts of the case in proper perspective. Referring to the allegations in the complaint petition and the supplementary statement made by the complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2 before the court and the order passed by the court below on the basis of the supplementary statement, learned counsel explains that the entire cause of action and place of occurrence, even as admitted by the complainant herself, was at Rohini, New Delhi and no part of any of the alleged offensive transactions took place either in Giridih or any such place within the jurisdiction of the court below. Under such circumstances, the learned court below cannot possibly exercise any jurisdiction for trial of the petitioners or the accused persons in the case at Giridih sinch such powers are restricted under the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel refers to the judgements passed by this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 2 JLJR 282 and in the case of Debabrata Saha & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, 2007 2 JLJR 404 and also on the judgement of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Santokh Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & another,2010 1 JLJ 157.;