- (1.) PETITIONERS have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them vide Complaint Case No. 1207 of 2006 in the Court of Manoj Chandra Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh as also for quashing the order dated 23.11.2006 passed in the said proceeding, whereby the learned court below had taken cognizance for the offences under sections 498 -A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
(2.) THE prayer for quashing is based upon two distinct and separate grounds. The first ground relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below to entertain and continue with the proceeding, and the second ground relates to the plea that since the institution of the case by the complainant -opposite party was with mala fide intention and by way of revenge only to harass the petitioners, its continuance will amount to abuse of the process of the court. The case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 alleging inter alia that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 on 8.6.2006 and after the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house at Dhubri, Assam on 9.6.2006. Within a few days of her arrival at her matrimonial house, she began to face ill -treatment and mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband and her in -laws who include petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and her brother -in -law namely petitioner no. 4. Such ill - treatment was meted out to her on account of nonfulfilment of their demand of a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakh by way of dowry. A month after on 9.7.2006, the uncle of the complainant visited the house of the petitioners and on finding the pitiable condition of the complainant, and on being confronted with the demand of Rs. 2.00 lakh by way of dowry besides abuse and insult, the uncle of the complainant brought her to her parents house at Hazaribagh on 11.7.2006 and since then, she has been living at the house of her father at Hazaribagh. It is further alleged that the husband and inlaws had illegally and forcibly retained the personal belongings including gold ornaments, wearing apparel and other articles which they have criminally misappropriated. Further allegation of the complainant is that she continued to be subjected to cruelty by the accused no. 4 namely, Sanjay Jain (brother -in -law of the complainant) who used to issue threats by telephone causing mental cruelty to the complainant, even at Hazaribagh. The statement of the complainant and her witnesses was recorded on solemn affirmation in course of inquiry under section 202 Cr.PC and on considering the allegations both in the complaint petition as also appearing in the statements of the witnesses, the learned court below recorded its observation that prima facie case for the offences is made out against four accused persons namely the present petitioners and issued summons against the petitioners directing them to face trial.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners while reading out the entire contents of the complaint petition, as filed by the complainant, submits that even according to the admitted case of the complainant, the entire acts of cruelty as alleged, were confined to the complainant's matrimonial house at Dhubri and no part of the alleged act was committed by the petitioners at Hazaribagh. Learned counsel explains that admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 had left her matrimonial Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India house alongwith her uncle on 11.7.2006, whereafter she never returned to the house of the petitioners, nor did any of the petitioners ever visit her at her parents' house at Hazaribagh and as such, the allegations in the complaint do not indicate that the alleged offences had continued even after complainant had left her matrimonial house and had returned to the house of her parents. Learned counsel emphasizes that admittedly, since no part of the alleged acts was committed by the petitioners at Hazaribagh, the court at Hazaribagh where the proceeding is presently pending, lacks territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel in support of his contention, has referred to the following judgments of the Apex Court: ''Manish Ratan and Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in 2006(8) Supreme 372, Ramesh and others vs. State of T.N. reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1989 and of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another reported in (2004)8 SCC 100. Referring to the second ground, learned counsel explains that the case has been filed by the complainant with mala fide intention with revengeful motive only for the purpose of causing harass -.ment to the petitioners, as would be evident from the fact that after the complainant had voluntarily left her matrimonial house alongwith her uncle on 11.7.2006 and refusing to restore conjugal relation with her, the petitioner no. 1 had filed a suit for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court at Assam vide T.S.(D) No. 32 of 2006 which was admitted on 14.9.2006. Adverting to the annexed copy of the plaint, learned counsel submits that summons in the suit was served upon the complainant at Hazaribagh on 22.9.2006 and it was only after having received summon in the divorce suit, the complainant filed her instant complaint petition before the court below at Hazaribagh on 11.10.2006. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid facts amply demonstrate that the complainant had filed her complaint with mala fides only to harass the petitioners by way of her revenge abusing thereby the process of the court.;