- (1.) THE inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been invoked by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.09.2004 passed by SDJM, Jamshedpur in C -1 Case No. 710 of 2004 whereby and whereunder he came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Sections 498 (A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner and other accused persons. Accordingly, he directed for issuance of summon against them.
(2.) AFORESAID complaint case has been instituted against the petitioner and six others on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant/opposite party no. 2, Harbinder Kaur @ Baban. It is alleged that on 05.12.1993 opposite party no. 2 married to accused Dalwinder Singh (son of petitioner) in accordance with Sikh rites and customs at Jamshedpur. It is further alleged that in course of marriage, the parents of opposite party no. 2 had given ornaments and other articles as gift / presentation. It is further alleged that after the marriage, opposite party no. 2 went to her matrimonial house situated at Gurudwara Road, Benochiti, Durgapur in the district of Burdwan, West Bengal. It is further alleged that she spent peaceful life in her matrimonial home for about one month. Thereafter, her husband Dalbinder Singh and other accused persons asked the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 to demand one lakh rupees and a motorcycle from her father. It is alleged that on her refusal to do so, the accused persons tortured her in various way on different occasions. It is stated that on 27.08.1995 opposite party no. 2 delivered a male child but inspite of same, she was ill -treated and tortured for demand of dowry. It is stated that ultimately on 14.09.2000, she has been driven out from her matrimonial house and thereafter she came to Jamshedpur and started living with her parents. It is further alleged that the accused persons had forced her to leave her matrimonial house without her son on the pretext that the son will be sent to her parents house later on, but the accused persons did not returned her son, thereby she has been mentally tortured by the accused persons including the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 11.07.2004 accused nos. 1,4 and 5 made a telephonic call to the complainant and threatened that if the complainant will try to visit their home she will be burnt alive. It is also alleged that the accused persons had not returned her gift / presentation received by them during her marriage and the same has been misappropriated by the accused person. It appears that the complaint petition filed by opposite party no. 2 has been transferred in the court of SDJM, Jamshedpur under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for inquiry. It then appears that learned SDJM, Jamshedpur took statement of opposite party no. 2 on solemn affirmation and had also examined two witnesses in support of complaint case. The record further reveals that vide order dated 20.09.2004, learned SDJM, Jamshedpur after considering the materials available on record concluded that prima facie case is made out and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused person including the petitioner under Section 498 (A), 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, SDJM, Jamshedpur directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner and other accused person under Section 204 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Against this order, the present application has been filed.
(3.) IT is submitted by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the complaint petition as well as the statement of complainant and other witnesses examined on her behalf, it is manifestly cleared that the entire acts of cruelty committed in Durgapur in the district of Burdwan, West Bengal. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in the entire complaint petition that any part of cruelty committed in Jamshedpur. Thus, learned SDJM, Jamshedpur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and/or make inquiry at Jamshedpur. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entire proceeding in relation to complaint case no. 710 of 2004 is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is an abuse of the process of Court.;