D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) IT appears from the office report that though notices were validly served upon the Opposite Party No. 2 and she had earlier appeared through lawyer by filing Vakalatnama and had also filed a rejoinder to the petitioners' present application, but on call counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has not appeared though counsel for the State is present.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The petitioners in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 03.08.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bokaro and the criminal proceeding presently pending against the petitioners following the order of cognizance vide C.P. Case No. 184 of 2005.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order of cognizance and the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners primarily on the ground that the impugned order is bad in view of the fact that the learned court below has passed the same without application of judicial mind and without considering the fact that even on the basis of the allegations and the entire facts as contained in the complaint petition of the Opposite Party No. 2, the court concerned at Bokaro has no jurisdiction either to entertain the complaint or to try the accused persons of the case. Obtaining support from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. : 2007 (1) SCC 262 and the earlier Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police : 2004 (8) SCC 100, learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged and presented by the complainant, no part of the alleged transaction relating to the alleged offensive conduct, took place within the jurisdiction of the court at Bokaro. Rather, even from the averments contained in the complaint petition, the entire transactions had taken place at the matrimonial house of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 at Nagpur. To elaborate his argument, learned Counsel would read out the contents of the complaint petition as filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and also the impugned order of the court below.;