JAYANT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) invoking its inherent powers for quashing the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi, in Trial No.1638 of 2013, arising out of Parihar P.S. Case No.134 of 2010 dated 9.10.2010/G.R.No.2540 of 2010, whereby and whereunder petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. on merit as also on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of his entire consequential criminal prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case primarily on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in conducting the trial with respect to offences in question.

(2.) Facts relevant for determination of issues raised on behalf of the parties are not in much dispute. Opposite party no.2 Vijay Laxmi Devi @ Nitu Singh gave her fardbeyan to the A.S.I. of Sitamarhi Police Station on 10.8.2010 at about 8 P.M. in the night alleging, inter alia, therein that her husband and in-laws made a demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of dowry, she was subjected to torture and cruelty. According to the aforesaid fardbeyan, the occurrence in question is said to have taken place at her marriage place at village Bariyarpur, PS Rajapakar, District Vaishali, in the State of Bihar as also at Village/Mohalla Shalugora near Hanuman Mandir, PS Bhakti Nagar, District New Jalpaiguri (Siliguri), in the State of West Bengal. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Parihar P.S. Case No.134 of 2010 dated 9.10.2010 for offences under Sections 498A, 379, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was instituted in the district of Sitamarhi and investigation commenced. On close of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner and four other co-accused persons. Accordingly, by an order dated 18.11.2011, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, and the case was transferred to the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi, for trial and disposal. On receipt of summons from the transferee court, the petitioner appeared and subsequently on 10.7.2012, a petition was filed on his behalf under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge on merit of the case as also on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court, i.e., the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi, in conducting the trial of the petitioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 7.1.2013. Hence the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a very short question. He submitted that even if the case of the petitioner is not considered on merit in the light of allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 lodged by the opposite party no.2, but on prosecution case itself the occurrence in question is said to have taken place either at village Bariyarpur, PS Rajapakar, in the District of Vaishali, or at village/mohalla Shalugora, PS Bhakti Nagar, District New Jalpaiguri (Siliguri), and no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Sitamarhi, in the district of Sitamarhi. Therefore, according to him, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the petitioner as also other accused persons in the aforesaid criminal case. It is submitted that in the factual backdrop of the criminal case, continuance of the criminal trial of the petitioner as also other accused persons is in violation of Section 177 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it is fit to be quashed by this Court. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of this Court in the cases of Y.Abraham Ajith vs Inspector of Police, 2004 8 SCC 100], Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan,2008 3 PLJR(SC) 3672] and Baijnath Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2009 3 PLJR 1012].