D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order taking cognizance dated 13.7.2007 and all subsequent proceedings whereby the cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 417/465/468/471/419/188/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. C -II -84/2007 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
(2.) SHORT fact of the case was that one Anita Kumari Ram and the opposite party No. 4 Rajnish Kumar being the colleagues in the same profession had developed intimacy and said Anita Kumari Ram was under the impression that she would be accepted by Rajnish Kumar as his wife and had continued her relationship with him. It was stated that when the opposite party No. 4 Rajnish Kumar refused to acknowledge her overtures any more, she felt cheated. Later, she produced a marriage certificate obtained from the office of the Marriage Registrar, Raghunathpur in the district of Purulia, West Bengal. A complaint was filed by Rajnish Kumar being aggrieved for the several offences against Anita Kumari Ram and other accused. The fact was brought to the notice of the Marriage Registrar, Raghunathpur in the district of Purulia, West Bengal, who upon his own verification found that the marriage certificate was obtained from his office by Anita Kumari Ram and the witnesses by practising fraud and deception. On such allegations, the Marriage Registrar filed separate complaint case, giving rise to Complaint Case No. C -II -84/2007, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Learned Counsel Mr. Mahesh Tewari submitted that the Petitioners Amaresh Kumar and Priyambada @ Priyambada Mishra, both practising lawyers, were simply the witnesses in the registration of the marriage in the office of the Marriage Registrar, Raghunathpur who attested under bona fide impression that the cause was genuine. Mr. Tewari asserted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the cause of action, for which cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, took place at Raghunathpur in the district of Purulia, West Bengal and therefore, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. For the same cause of action with reference to the Complaint Case No. C -II -84/2007, other accused persons, including Anita Kumari Ram preferred Cr.M.P. No. 1376 of 2007 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings on the ground that cognizance of the offence taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was barred under Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) A co -ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 16.09.2010 while disposing of the Cr.M.P. No. 599 of 2008 with Cr.M.P. No. 1376 of 2007 observed, As regards the criminal proceeding which was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the Marriage Registrar, I have perused the averments contained in the complaint petition and I find force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Petitioners that the learned court below does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or try the accused Petitioners for the alleged offences. This, on account of the fact that as admitted through out in the averments in the complaint petition, the entire transaction had taken place in the office of the Marriage Registrar in the district of Purulia within the State of West Bengal. The provisions under Section 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do prohibit the learned court below at Ranchi, from entertaining the complaint on account of the lack of territorial jurisdiction. On this ground, the entire criminal proceeding which was initiated against the Petitioners pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, vide Complaint Case No. C -II -84/2007, is hereby quashed.;