SUMANTA SETH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 1487 of 2011

(2.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Sadar Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 577 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 498A of the IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. Subsequently, by the interlocutory application, the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, in G.R. Case No. 577 of 2008, has been brought on record, whereby the cognizance for the offence is taker against the petitioners under Sections 498A of the IPC and the case was transferred to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa, for trial of the case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution of the case against the petitioners, as also the impugned order taking cognizance passed by the Court below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the allegations, if any, against the petitioners are at Durgapur and not at Chaibasa and accordingly, the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. It has also been submitted that there is inordinate delay of about nine months in lodging the complaint in the Court below, and that too, was lodged only after the complainant learnt that a divorce suit was filed against the wife by the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., reported in (2004)8 SCC 100, wherein in a similar matter arising for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, where it was found that the complainant had disclosed that the respondent had left the place i.e. Nagercoil where she was residing with her husband and all the allegations, according to the complainant, had taken place at Nagercoil and thereafter she came to Chennai, it was held that the Court of Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the institution of the criminal case and the impugned order taking cognizance in the said case, by the Court below at Chaibasa, is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and are fit to be quashed.