DEBABRATA SAHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide C.P. Case No. 445 of 2005 and the order dated 6-7-2005 whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498, IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and summons were issued directing their appearance for facing trial.

(2.) The main ground advanced by the petitioners is the ground relating to jurisdiction, claiming that the learned Court below did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the opposite party No. 2 for initiating proceedings against the petitioners on account of the fact that no cause of action arose or accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court below.

(3.) Facts of the case briefly stated is that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad naming the present petitioners as accused alleging inter alia that her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 19th November, 2003 in the house of the complainant's father at Dhanbad pursuant to negotiation between their respective elders. After her marriage, she went to live at her matrimonial house in the company of her husband and in-laws at Calcutta, West Bengal. On account of the alleged nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, her husband and in-laws began subjecting her to ill-treatment and cruelty at her matrimonial house with further threats of divorce, if their demands were not fulfilled. Four months after the marriage, she came to her paternal house at Dhanbad for completing her academic courses. After about "seven months she went back to her matrimonial house and during her sojourn at her matrimonial house, she again faced illtreatment, neglect and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She was thus compelled to leave her matrimonial house and return to the house of her parents. During the period of her stay at her parent's house, her husband used to make frequent telephonic calls giving out abuses to her and threatening that he would enforce divorce and go for second marriage if the demanded amount of dowry is not given. Instilled with fear on account of the threats issued to her, the complainant did not go back to her matrimonial house ever since after she had returned to the house of her parents.