IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.39199 of 2004
NANAK CHANDRA GUPTA & ORS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
-----------
9 2.7.2008 Learned counsel is permitted to make necessary
correction with regard to court’s name in paragraph-1 of the
application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
However, none appears on behalf of opposite party
no.2 to argue the matter.
This application has been filed for quashing the order
dated 16.4.2004 passed by learned Sub-divisional Magistrate,
Bhabua in Complaint Case no. 712/02 whereby and whereunder he
had taken cognizance under section 498A of the Penal Code against
the petitioners accused and issued summons for their appearance.
Shortly stated the case of the complainant/opposite
party no.2, as put in the petition of complaint is that she was married
with late Manoj Kumar Gupta son of petitioner no.1 on 26.4.1999 at
Baidyanath Dham, Deoghar temple in which several presentations
were given. After marriage she began to live with her husband at
Mithapur, Patna. It is further said that she went to her naihar at
village Bahuara, P.S. Dildarnagar, District Gazipur with her husband
where her husband died on 31.5.2001 and thereafter she returned to
Patna and again taken back to Bahuara as she was pregnant. In the
2
month of August, 2001 she gave birth to a daughter. On being
informed her father in law came and brought her to Mithapur, Patna.
It has been alleged that at Patna petitioners tried to obtain her
signature on a plain paper to grab the property of her husband who
had business at Patna. When she refused to sign papers she was
ousted from the house and inspite of social pressure she was not
accepted by the petitioners and ultimately on 26.7.2002 accused
persons/petitioners ousted her from the house. She then returned to
her Naihar. It appears that a petition of complaint was filed before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua on 2.8.2002.
It appears that the complainant was examined on
solemn affirmation and during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C.
one witness was examined and the learned Magistrate after being
satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused petitioners under section 498A of the Penal Code, issued
summons against them for appearance.
The argumernt of learned counsel is that the court at
Bhabua has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He
submitted that no part of cause of action took place at Bhabua. There
is no allegation even of conspiracy.
As per allegation the marriage was performed at
Deoghar. After marriage the complainant was brought to Patna by
her husband where she started living. Complainant’s naihar is at
Gazipur in the State of U.P.
I find substance in the argument of learned counsel
3
that no part of the occurrence was committed at Bhabua. It is not
clear why the complainant decided to file complaint at Bhabua.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
complaint case filed at Bhabua is not maintainable.
For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed
and the order of cognizance dated 16.4.2004 is hereby quashed.
Al (M.Saran,J)