VIJAY KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Alauli P.S. Case No. 128 of 2005. registered for committing offences under Ss. 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner on the ground that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action for initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner -accused arose within his lo -cai jurisdiction.

(2.) DURING the hearing, the learned Advocate of the petitioner drew my atten - tion towards the averments made in the complaint petition and the place of occurrence shown in the complaint. He submitted that as per the complaint petition, the cause of action arose in Mohalla Kashipur within town Samastipur as well as at the quarter of accused no. 1 (petitioner) situated within the campus of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalya, Araria. He submitted that the recitals of the complaint petition also disclose that no part of the occurrence had taken place at Khagaria and," therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria had no jurisdiction to entertain this case. In support of his argument, the learned Advocate of the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, 2004 8 SCC 100. On the other hand learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant -opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Raj Kumari Vijh, Appellant V/s. Deoraj Vijh, Respondent, AIR 1977 SC 1001 and submitted that on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction the trial of any case cannot be declared void, rather, the defect of lack of territorial jurisdiction is curable. He has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Ratan & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & Anr., 2007 1 SCC 262 and relying upon the said decision, learned Advocate has argued that if it was found that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case in that situation this Court should pass an order for transfer of Alauli P.S. Case no. 128 of 2005 from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur or Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria.

(3.) FROM plain reading of the above -mentioned decisions, it is clear that the courts have not deviated from general rule as provided u/s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court according to which every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Admittedly, in the instant case, the place of occurrence has been shown as the house of the petitioner situated at Mohalla Kashipur within Samastipur town as well as the campus of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Araria. The above facts establish beyond doubt that the cause of action had never arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria and, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order of taking cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, is bad in law and must be set aside.