B. B. Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) Instant application has been filed for quashing of order dated 10.11.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in C.P. Case No.2540 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No.490 of 2010 whereby the court has found prima facie case under Sections 313, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons against all the accused persons.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant- Nasrin Fatima filed a case before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi numbered as C.P. Case No.2540 of 2009 alleging that she was married with Md. Rafique on 13.11.2006 at Ranchi and after the marriage she went to her matrimonial home at Dugda, District-Purulia and was residing there. The further case is that after one month of marriage all the accused persons demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and a car as dowry and for its non-fulfillment she was threatened with dire consequences. The accused persons not permitted her to meet with any neighbour. They were always abusing her in filthy language. The father-in-law and brother-in-law were keeping bad eyes upon her. No treatment was given while she fell ill. The further case is that father-in-law had taken her signature on a blank paper. It was stated by the accused persons that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled then her husband would be married again with another lady.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that every offence obviously be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed but in the present case the offence committed according to prosecution case in the District of Purulia (West Bengal). The case has been registered in the District of Ranchi (Jharkhand) which has no jurisdiction to try the matter according to the fact and circumstances of this case. She further submitted that continuance of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as the case is not maintainable in law. She relied on decisions of Ajay Kr. Jain alias Ajay Kr. Kala alias Ajay Kumar Jain (Kala) & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2007 2 JLJR 282; Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2014 12 SCC 362; Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2016 9 SCC 01: (AIR 2016 SC 3930); and K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, 2017 11 SCC 176 : (AIR 2016 SC 5430). She further submitted that the entire incident of torture as per allegation was committed at Purulia so the court at Ranchi has no jurisdiction to proceed in the case.;