SIDHNATH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of three Petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) Three Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 5.9.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 239 of 2006/Trial No. 1587 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/498/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Senior Counsel, while challenging the order of cognizance, has confined his submission on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the concerned court. It has been submitted that cause of action had not arisen with the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned court i.e. Gaya and in absence of territorial jurisdiction, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was not competent to entertain the complaint petition. He has argued that entire cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of a court at Patna. The marriage had taken place at Patna and allegation of torturing the daughter of the complainant is in the district of Patna and as such the learned court was not required to entertain the complaint petition or to pass cognizance order. It was further submitted that of course, in the complaint petition, one Nitu Singh was made Accused No. 4, but the learned Magistrate has not proceeded against Accused No. 4 and cognizahce order has been passed only in respect of the offences committed by three accused, who are Petitioners before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, has relied upon judgment Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan,2008 3 PLJR(SC) 3672 Ibraham Aziz v. Inspector of Police, Chennai., 2004 AIR(SC) 4286

(3.) In this case, Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the Petitioners.