BASISTH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, eighteen in number, have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 11.1.1999 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 520C of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 494,406,504,120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The short facts of the case is that the complainant-Opp.Party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, disclosing therein that his marriage was solemnized with Bindu Devi ( petitioner No. 3) on 17.2.1997 in the premises of Baba Mansu Kamna Nath, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. After solemnization of the marriage petitioner No. 3 lived with the complainant at Nadia Tola, Bariarpur, which is in the district of Munger. It was alleged in the complaint petition that subsequently on 5.6.1997, the accused Dilip Mandal (petitioner No. 4) performed vidagiri of his sister and while going, the wife of the complainant went along with all ornaments and clothes. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1 (accused Basisth Mandal) sent a message through accused Dilip Mandal (petitioner No. 4) and called the complainant in the house of accused Nisha Devi (petitioner No. 7) who was resident of Bhagalpur . In the house of Nisha Devi , accused persons misbehaved with the complainant and he was also abused and thereafter on 21.7.1997, though petitioner No. 3 was married wife of the complainant, she was got married with accused Hardeo Mandal ( petitioner No. 11) and all ornaments , clothes and the amount, which were given by the complainant, were forcibly taken over by the accused persons. On these allegations, the complaint petition was filed. He was examined on S.A. and in supported of the complaint case three witnesses were also examined. Learned Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 11.1.1999 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 494,406,504,120B of the Indian Penal Code which order has been impugned in the present proceeding.

(3.) Sri Umakant Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his argument to the point of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Judicial Magistrate, Munger by way of referring to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in view of the said provision ordinarily trial is to proceed within the local jurisdiction of a court. He submits that as per the allegation made in the entire complaint petition, all the offences alleged to have been committed was committed within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Bhagalpur and, as such, the learned Magistrate, Munger Court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and proceed therewith and one this sole ground he has made a prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance .