ANSHU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2008 whereby he has declined to entertain the petition of the accused-petitioner assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court to proceed with the trial.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details the facts which are required to be exposited for the purpose of adjudication of this application are that the accused petitioner was sent up for trial along with others for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 323, 497, 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Juge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Sheikhpura. A petition was filed on 17.11.2009 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the accused persons on the ground that the material on record do not constitute the offences as alleged against the accused person. Another application was filed on 09.12.2009 that the occurrence had taken place at Deoghar in the State of Jharkhand inasmuch as the deceased was staying with her husband, who was working in a Dairy Farm at Deoghar from 2003 and, therefore, the court at Sheikhpura had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

(3.) The learned trial judge rejected the application for discharge on the foundation that there were, prima facie, material on record to implicate the accused petitioner in the crime in question. While dealing with the application pertaining to jurisdiction, the learned trial judge has expressed the view that on a perusal of the allegations, it would be quite vivid that the place of initiation of the crime in question is Sheikhpura and it ultimately culminated at Deoghar. The trial court in such circumstances came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly the petition dated 09.12.09 filed by the accused petitioners was rejected.