RAMNARESH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order taking cognizance dated 06.01.2006 passed in C. R. No. 266 of 2005 Tr. No. 1838 of 2006 by the SDJM, Samastipur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the entire allegation in the complaint or no part of the allegation about subjecting cruelty has been stated to be in the jurisdiction of Samastipur as no part of the occurrence for offence under Section 323, 498, 379, 494 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been stated to come under the jurisdiction of Samastipur District and hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur has no jurisdiction or the Judicial Magistrate of Samastipur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or issue processes and contend that no allegation about the subjecting cruelty or assault has been said to have occurred in the jurisdiction of Samastipur.

(3.) From perusal of the complaint petition it is not disputed that no part of the occurrence for offence under 498A, 323 and 494 has occurred in the jurisdiction of Samastipur and hence no part of the occurrence took place in the jurisdiction of Samastipur and hence Section 177 of the Cr.P.C specifically prohibits the jurisdiction of the Magistrate if the occurrence has not taken place within his local jurisdiction and has placed reliance upon decision reported in (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chenni and Anr., 2004 8 SCC 100 ) as well as the decision reported in (Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,2008 3 PLJR(SC) 3672) where it has been held that if no part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned then the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and has quashed the proceeding with a direction that the complaint petition be returned to the complainant and if see so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with.