- (1.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2008 passed by Sri D. Mahapatra, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby cognizance u/s 498A I.P.C. in connection with C.P. Case No.116 of 2008 has been taken and also for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of said complaint case.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that complainant Pinki Devi was married with the petitioner on 25.02.2001 at Sarswati Colony within the Block of Hilsa Jail, P.S. Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda according to Hindu rites and customs. After solemnization of marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial home but she did not experience happy conjugal life because of demand of more dowry. She was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty and have been subjected to assault too. It is disclosed that out of said wedlock she delivered two children; one male and another female. The complainant and her children were not provided proper food and care. The accused persons also tried to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil. The petitioner wanted to get rid of her. When the torture became unbearable, she lodged a complaint vide C.P. Case No.118 of 2008 in which the learned Magistrate, after holding enquiry took cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. and directed to issue summons against the accused persons.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance without application of judicial mind and has taken cognizance against all the accused persons including the petitioner. He did not consider the statement of complainant recorded on Solemn Affirmation properly. On being questioned by Court, she has clearly stated that all the incident of torture had taken place at Patna and no incident has taken place at her parents house. According to complaint, the place of marriage is district of Nalanda whereas the complainant was residing with her husband at Patna. No incident which had taken place at Dhanbad has been indicated in the complaint or in the statement of witnesses including the statement of complainant recorded on Solemn Affirmation. The Civil Court at Dhanbad had no jurisdiction either to take cognizance or to try the case. In the circumstances, the order of cognizance is liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction.;