- (1.) THE entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing No.1623 of 2012 including the order dated 12.9.2012 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the court which has taken cognizance lacks territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant having married in the year 2002 to Hitesh P. Trivedi (petitioner no.3) started living at her in-laws place at Bangalore. After few days of the marriage, accused persons started subjecting her to torture mentally as well as physically and was being subjected to assault also frequently. In spite of subjection to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand, she was living at her in-laws place with the hope that bad days would be over. The other day, when her family members came to her in-laws' place at the time of Shradh ceremony of her mother-in-law, not only her husband but father-in-law and also mother-in-law assaulted her severely. The accused persons used to hold out threat that unless and until demand is fulfilled, they will go on subjecting her to assault. On 30.3.2012 she was not only assaulted badly but was driven out of the house. She came to her parents house. On 12.7.2012 all the accused persons having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant entered into the house for putting family members to fear to hurt. However, when alarm was raised, they fled away. Thereby it was alleged that the accused persons did commit offence under Section 498(A), 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No.1623 of 2012 in which when after holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 12.9.2012 it was challenged. Challenge to the order taking cognizance seems to be on several grounds but the ground which was canvassed for quashing of the order taking cognizance is that all the overt acts allegedly committed by the accused persons are said to have been committed at Bangalore but the case was lodged at Dhanbad. Therefore, order taking cognizance is bad, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Y.Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police [(2004) 8 SCC 100], Manish Ratan and others vs. State of M.P and another [(2006) 8 SCC 372] and also in case of Bhura Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another [2008 (3) JLJR (SC) 287].
(3.) MR .Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did further submit that in order to create jurisdiction to the court at Dhanbad a fictitious statement has been made in the complaint petition that all the accused persons having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant came to the house of the parents of the complainant at Dhanbad and committed house trespass. That statement does not find corroboration either form the statement made on solemn affirmation by the complainant or by the witnesses during enqiry as the complainant in her statement has stated in this regard that accused persons came to the house and held out threat that if she will go on prosecuting the case against her husband, they will kidnap her child whereas witness no.1 has simply stated about extending of threat whereas witness no.2 has stated that she will have to face consequence, if she does not give child to her husband. Therefore, the statement made by the complainant with respect to accrual of the cause of action at Dhanbad does not find corroboration with the statement made by the witnesses during enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then the court in view of the recent amendment made under Section 202 should not have assumed jurisdiction for proceeding against the persons, who are residing outside of the jurisdiction of the court and consequently, he should not have taken cognizance of the offence.;