KARUNA KANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this miscellaneous application prayer has been made to quash the order dated 22.9.2005 passed by Shri O.P.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Bhabhua RS. Case No. 45/03 corresponding to G.R. No. 135/03 whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the court to commit the case and try the same in the district of Kaimur when the offence has taken place at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage of informant 'selder sister Sangita Pandey was performed on 12.5.1999 with Manish Pandey as per Hindu custom in which several presentations were given. On the day of marriage accused Manish Pandey and his other family members made further demand of Rs. 40,000/ -cash, fridge, VCR. etc. Informant 'sfamily expressed their difficulty in providing the same. They were mentally tortured by the accused persons and after great persuasion the Bidai ceremony was performed and the victim girl was taken to Varanasi at the place of her husband. At Varanasi also the demand of accused persons continued. Sangita was ill -treated by them. In this way the story continued. It has been alleged that due to non - fulfilment of dowry demand she was burnt to death at Varanasi. The Police after investigation submitted final form on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua on 17.2.2004 took cognizance under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. At the time 1/1/2013 Page 180 Suman Kumar Verma Versus Union Of India of commitment the question of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the petitioners which the learned Magistrate rejected by the impugned order dated 22.9.2005. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present application for quashing before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that even on the day of marriage the husband of the deceased lady and his other family members made demand of dowry. This dowry demand continued and whenever they came to Bhabhua, they repeated the demand. He submitted that dowry demand was made at Bhabhua also and so the court of Bhabhua would have jurisdiction to try the offence.