ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
Page 0929
1. Which of the two courts – the Magisterial court at Gopalganj or the one in Saran at Chapra – had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint petition preferred by the complainant, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, is the significant issue which falls for decision in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The five petitioners herein have filed the application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising from Complaint Case No. 980(c) of 2005 including the order dated 26.9.2006, passed therein by the learned Sub – Divisional judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction.
3. The background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: The marriage of the complainant, Renu Devi, was solemnized with petitioner No. 1, Sudama Bhagat, on 26.4.1999 at village Mohamadpur within the District of Gopalganj whereat costly items of gifts worth Rs. 43,000/- were presented to her. After the marriage she went to her marital home at village Rasulpur, P.S. Amnour in the District of Saran where the first six months were spent in cordiality and bliss. Thereafter the womenfdk in the marital home started tainting her for not bringing sufficient dowry and all the accused directed her to bring a bullock Page 0930 and a motor cycle apart from Rs. 25,000/- in cash from her father/ brother towards dowry failing which she would be ousted from the home. The complainant’s brother was summoned by her father-in-law to whom she narrated about her tales of woe and the demand for additional dowry and also of her apprehension of being murdered. It is said that when the brother wanted to reason with the complainant’s in-laws, they appeared adamant about the demand and also threatened of dire consequences. Even, the husband, in course of his sojourn home from Bombay where he was employed would subject her to torture and would threaten of contacting a second marriage if the demand was not met. Eventually, on 4.6.2005 while she was sleeping, the accused persons attempted to set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body but she managed to escape whereafter she was also assaulted. She took refuge in her father’s house. It is said that when her father and brother went to her sasural to reason with the in – laws, they were abused and assaulted.
4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when it the allegations contained therein are accepted in toto since no part of the cause of action arose or took place within the jurisdiction of the court of learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate at Gopalganj. In this connection it was submitted that the complaint itself disclosed that after the marriage she went to the marital home and after six months of marital bliss she was taunted and demands of additional dowry was made. Even the story of torture by the in – laws and husband and the attempt to burn her took place in the marital home in village Rasulpur in the District of Saran. As such the court of at Gopalganj had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
5. In response, learned Counsel for the State as also O.P. No. 2 submitted that it was a continuing offence.
6. As held in Manish Ratan v. State of M.P. , it was held that in a case of this nature, an offence cannot be held to be a continuing one only because the complainant was forced to leave her marital home.
7. In the instant case the factual position is that after the allayed attempt on her life the complainant took up residence with her father. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegation about any demand of dowry of commission of any act consisting an offence at Mohamadpur the Parental home of the complainant. Therefore, Section 178(c) Cr.P.C. does not come into operation. Accordingly, the learned sub – Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Gopalganj had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the cognizance taken by him cannot be sustained in law. The application has therefore to be allowed and the order taking cognizance is quashed.
Let the complaint petition be returned to the complainant so that she may present the same before the appropriate court, if so advised.