SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the petitioner prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 1613 of 2004, T.R. No. 861 of 2006 pending in the Court of Sri Kumar Pawan, Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

(2.) IT appears that Raju Mahto lodged a written report alleging therein that he married in the year 1988 with Sumitra Devi, daughter of Kamaldeo Mahto of village Ahilyapur. It is stated that after the marriage the said Kamaldeo Mahto took away his wife and lodged a case against him in the year 1994. It is stated that in above case he has been convicted. It is further alleged that thereafter on 30.8.2004 the said Kamaldeo Mahto along with Rohit Mahto, Laljit Mahto solemnized the second marriage of aforesaid Sumitra Devi with one Manoj Verma at Dukhiya Math. It is alleged that when the informant forbed them from doing so, he has been assaulted by the aforesaid accused persons.

(3.) IT is submitted that from the perusal of written report, it is apparent that the entire occurrence took place in Dukhiya Math, which is under the jurisdiction of Giridih, (Mufassil) Police Station, therefore, lodging of FIR and investigation by Ahilyapur Police Station is wholly without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the CJM, Giridih wrongly took cognizance of the offence under section 494 of the IPC on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police. It is submitted that section 198 of the Cr.P.C. put an embargo on the power of court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. It is submitted that since the informant had not filed any complaint before the CJM, Giridih complaining the commission of offence under section 494 of the IPC, the order of cognizance is bad in law, consequently the trial of the accused on the basis of said cognizance is also illegal.