HEMANTA MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition, the Petitioners assail the legality and propriety of the Order Dated 30.08.2006 passed by the SDJM, Bargarh in ICC Case No. 57 of 2004 and pray to quash the same on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the husband of Damaayanti, the sister of opposite party No. 2. On a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2, the Learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioners and issued processes against them. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 760 of 2006, wherein territorial jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh to entertain the complaint was questioned. The said misc. case was disposed of on 13.04.2006 granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise the point of jurisdiction before the Trial Court, which would look into the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a petition before the Trial Court with a prayer to drop the proceeding on the ground of jurisdiction. The Trial Court, however, rejected the said petition with the finding that a part of the offence has been committed within its jurisdiction and issued NBWs against the Petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently contended that the Trial Court rightly took cognizance as a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The marriage took place at Bargarh and demand for dowry was made at Bargarh. After the marriage, as dispute arose, there was an attempt for settlement, which also took place at Bargarh. At the time of settlement, Petitioner No. 1 throttled the neck of amayanti and did not agree to take her back without T.V. and cash of Rs. 60,000/ -. Therefore, it is clear that a part of the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of the SDJM, Bargarh.