Suresh Das Harijan vs State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—Heard. This application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 18.1.2005 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur in complaint case No. 36 of 2004 thereby and thereunder the cognizance u/s 498A of the IPC has been taken against this petitioner and others.

The only plea of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the court of Bhagalpur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter as no part of the occurrence ever took place within the for ritorial jurisdiction of Bhagalpur district It is further submitted that the complaint petition itself would go to show that the entire alleged occurrence of torture etc took place in Katihar district where the couple used to reside. The Opposite Party No. 2/complainant Anita Devi left the house of the petitioner situated in Katihar district voluntarily and took shelter at the place of her brother which is situated within the Bhagalpur district. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the apex court reported in 2004 SCC Vol. 8, 100 Y. Abrahan Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Others.

Perused the complaint petition. It appears that the marriage of the party took place as back as in the year 1983 The Opposite Party since then was living along with the petitioner in his house at Katihar. All alleged act of torture etc took place in Katihar district. Ultimately vide paragraph 12 of the complaint petition, the Opposite Party left Katihar along with her brother and began to live at his house situated in Bhagalpur district There is no allegation that she was forcibly ousted from the house of her husband. Therefore, this case falls squarely u/s 177 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction and no; u/s 178 or 179 of the Cr.P.C. The Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. runs as follow:--

"Ordinary place of enquiry and trial.--Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed".

Therefore, the competent court was the court of Katihar which alone had the jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance in the matter. The Court of Bhagalpur had jurisdiction to make enquiry or conduct trial as no part of the occurrence ever took place in its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to return the complaint to the Opposite Party No. 2 for filing before the appropriate court, if so advised.