{"id":9282,"date":"2010-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-30T08:43:05","modified_gmt":"2017-12-30T03:13:05","slug":"debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                        Cr. Misc. No.229 of 2008\n          DEBASISH DEY, SON OF LATE BIJAY KUMAR DEY, RESIDENT\n          OF B.G. COLONY, RAILWAY QUARTR NO. 6\/B, POLICE STATION\n          AND DISTRICT BONGAIGAON (ASSAM).             .................\n          PETITIONER.\n                                 Versus\n      1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.\n      2. SURINA RAJAN, WIFE OF DEBASISH DEY, RESIDENT OF B.G.\n         COLONY, RAILWAY QUARTR NO. 6\/B, POLIE STATION\n         BONGAIGAON, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON (ASSAM) AT PRESENT\n         RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 2M\/71, BAHADURPUR HOUSING\n         COLONY, MAHATMA GANDHI NAGAR, POLICE STATION -\n         KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT - PATNA.\n                               -----------\n<\/pre>\n
04\/    23.06.2010                 This petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2007<\/p>\n
                    by which the cognizance has been taken by the SDJM, Patna in Complaint<\/p>\n
                    Case No. 943(C) of 2007 of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian<\/p>\n
                    Penal Code and ordered to issue summon against the accused person.<\/p>\n
                    2.           The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition filed<\/p>\n
                    by the complainant is that the complainant Surina Ranjan was married<\/p>\n
                    with Debasish Dey on 24.09.2006 in the temple situated at Bagribari,<\/p>\n
                    Dhubari (Assam) according to the Hindu rites and rituals and the victim<\/p>\n
                    complainant appeared before Special Marriage Officer, Golpara along with<\/p>\n
                    the accused for registration of the marriage and marriage certificate was<\/p>\n
                    issued and the complainant began to live with her husband accused since<\/p>\n
                    24.09.2006 at B. G. Colony, Railway Quarter No. 6\/8 Bongaigaon, Assam.<\/p>\n
                    There is further allegation of demand of Rs.5,00000\/- (five lacs) in<\/p>\n
                    December, 2006 and the complainant was pressurized to inform her father<\/p>\n
                    for sending rupees five lacs and thereafter there is allegation of subjecting
\n                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
cruelty by different modes and means including assault. Then it is alleged<\/p>\n
that the complainant informed her maternal uncle to came at Bongaigaon<\/p>\n
and try to settle the matter and further on 15.03.2007 took her signature on<\/p>\n
plain paper including non judicial stamp by which the victim became sick<\/p>\n
and her treatment was going on.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The further case is that on 24.03.2007 the complainant learnt<\/p>\n
about the planning of the accused persons for dire consequence to her live<\/p>\n
and limb so she succeeded to flee away from her Sasural to her Naihar.<\/p>\n
4.          The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that<\/p>\n
all the act of committing or subjecting cruelty on the person of the victim<\/p>\n
are at Bongaigaon, much less, no part of the occurrence has taken place in<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of the Panta district and Judicial Magistrate, First Class,<\/p>\n
has no jurisdiction and has relied upon decision reported in PLJR 2007(4)<\/p>\n
192 (Prannath Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008 (3)<\/p>\n
PLJR 367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) and<\/p>\n
2009 (4) PLJR 1 SC Section (Shri Rajendra Ram Chandra Kavelekar<\/p>\n
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.).\n<\/p>\n
5.         Learned counsel for the opposite party appeared and submitted<\/p>\n
that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence need not have<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction to try a case and any Judicial Magistrate has power<\/p>\n
to take cognizance and has relied upon decision reported in 1999 (8) SC<\/p>\n
686 (Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.). In<\/p>\n
decision reported in 2008(3) PLJR 367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan & Anr.) a complaint was lodged by Rajeshwari which was<\/p>\n
sent for institution of a case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C to the
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
police station for investigation and FIR was lodged under Section 498A of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
Challan was filed, charges were framed and the petitioner made a prayer<\/p>\n
before the Court that the Court of ACJM has no jurisdiction to try the<\/p>\n
offence as the cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of other<\/p>\n
Court. The revision preferred before the Sessions Judge was rejected and<\/p>\n
High Court also dismissed the criminal case. Petition preferred by the<\/p>\n
petitioner against the order passed in revision holding that marriage<\/p>\n
solemnized at village Ramsara, District – Firojpur and right from the<\/p>\n
marriage the complainant and her husband lived in Punjab and her in-laws<\/p>\n
and husband has died and now she is residing in Shri Gangadhar, District<\/p>\n
Rajasthan along with maternal relation and so still the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code being a continuing one, the<\/p>\n
complaint cannot be dismissed whereas the complainant is at present<\/p>\n
living and hence, the offence is still continuing within the local area of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan where, at present, the complainant is living and hence, the<\/p>\n
ACJM Ganganagar has jurisdiction to try the case. The court also found all<\/p>\n
the allegation regarding the offence charged which have been committed at<\/p>\n
the previous resident of the complainant and relying upon decision<\/p>\n
reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector<\/p>\n
of Police, Chennai & Anr.) wherein this Court has held that cause of<\/p>\n
action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence<\/p>\n
was committed could not be tried by the Court where no part of the<\/p>\n
offence was committed and hence under these facts it was held that having<\/p>\n
regard to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant the inevitable
\n                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and<\/p>\n
therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the<\/p>\n
matter and hence, quash the proceeding before the ACJM, Gandhinagar<\/p>\n
and ordered the complaint be returned to the complainant, if so, she wishes<\/p>\n
she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
6.                 However, in decision reported in PLJR 2007(4) 192<\/p>\n
(Prannath Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) the case was<\/p>\n
for quashing the order of cognizance on the ground that the entire<\/p>\n
complaint showed that whatever incidence happened was at Patna<\/p>\n
matrimonial home of the complainant and finally ousted from the<\/p>\n
matrimonial home and thereafter she went back to Bhagalpur and there<\/p>\n
was no allegation of any demand at Bhagalpur and relying upon decision<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 2004 (8) SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs.<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) held that since no cause of action<\/p>\n
arose within the jurisdiction of the court at Bhagalpur and hence, the<\/p>\n
Bhagalpur Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and quash the<\/p>\n
proceeding with a liberty to the complainant to take appropriate step for<\/p>\n
filing complaint before the appropriate court in decision reported in 2009<\/p>\n
(4) PLJR 1 SC Section (Shri Rajendra Ram Chandra Kavelekar Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra & Anr.). This was a case in which a case was filed<\/p>\n
under the jurisdiction of Ranchi in Jharkhand bearing R.C. Case No. 18 of<\/p>\n
2004 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act and a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at
\n                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
Bombay on several other grounds that the Ranchi has no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
register a case against the appellant since the entire cause of action has<\/p>\n
arisen in the State of Maharashtra and so the CBI, Ranchi has no locus to<\/p>\n
file a complaint against the appellant in respect of the offence mentioned<\/p>\n
in the charge and the petition having been rejected by the Bombay High<\/p>\n
Court, the appellant moved the Supreme Court and Supreme Court after<\/p>\n
considering the facts and circumstances held that the cause of action has<\/p>\n
arisen within the jurisdiction of Suj-Judge, Ranchi. The investigation is<\/p>\n
complete at Ranchi. Records and the documents pertaining to the<\/p>\n
complainant and the charge sheet are before Special Judge, Ranchi and<\/p>\n
hence, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was perfectly justified in<\/p>\n
declining to entertain the writ petition and rejected the application relying<\/p>\n
upon decision reported in 2007(7) SCC 640 (Navinchandra Majithia Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Maharastra) and 2007 (5) SCC 786 (Asit Bhattacharjee Vs.<\/p>\n
Hanuman Prasad Oja). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in all the three<\/p>\n
decision mentioned above held that the trial is to be conducted at a place<\/p>\n
where the place of occurrence falls or within the jurisdiction of the court<\/p>\n
where the occurrence has taken place and not the place where the<\/p>\n
complaint has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon<\/p>\n
decision reported in 1999 (8) SCC 686 (Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.<\/p>\n
Rajesh Agarwar & Ors.) with diametric apposite contention that any<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate of First Class has jurisdiction to try a case. However,<\/p>\n
in decision reported in 1999 (8) SCC 686 (Trisuns Chemical Industry<\/p>\n
Vs. Rajesh Agarwar & Ors.) a complaint was filed by the company
\n                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class alleging certain offence<\/p>\n
including the offence of cheating against another complaint and its<\/p>\n
Director and the said complaint was sent for investigation under Section<\/p>\n
156 (3) Cr.P.C. The accused Director moved the High Court of Gujarat<\/p>\n
under Section 482 for quashing the complaint and the Single Judge<\/p>\n
quashed the complaint as also the order passed by the Magistrate<\/p>\n
thereupon. The allegation in the complaint was, in sum and substance, that<\/p>\n
the accused Director approached him and offered to supply 5450 Metric<\/p>\n
Ton of Toasted Soabin Extraction for a price of merely four and half<\/p>\n
crores. The rate quoted was higher than marked price the appellant was to<\/p>\n
pay the price in advance as demanded by the accused, so the same was<\/p>\n
paid through cheque but the accused supplied the commodity of most<\/p>\n
inferior and sub-standard quality. The product and the report obtained<\/p>\n
from laboratory were sent for testing and it was reported that commodity<\/p>\n
was sub-standard causing a loss of Rs.17 lacs by said transaction. The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge quashed the complaint on two grounds and one of<\/p>\n
them was the jurisdiction stating therein that there is nothing in the<\/p>\n
complaint which shows that any party of the transaction took place within<\/p>\n
the territory of State of Gujarat and also observed that it appears that even<\/p>\n
the supply of the processed Soabin were delivered to the complainant<\/p>\n
company at the factory itself and hence Judicial Magistrate, Ganghidham<\/p>\n
ought to not have taken cognizance. However, this view of the High Court<\/p>\n
was held to be erroneous on the ground that Magistrate taking cognizance<\/p>\n
must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case and Chapter<\/p>\n
XIII of the Cr.P.C relates to jurisdiction of the criminal court in enquiries
\n                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
and trial but also considered Section 179 of the Cr.P.C which lays that the<\/p>\n
place shall cover even the jurisdiction where the consequence has ensued<\/p>\n
and said provision may give the power to court to take cognizance and<\/p>\n
further consider to take cognizance upon police report and interpreted that<\/p>\n
any Magistrate in Section 192 of the Cr.P.C as enshrined of first class may<\/p>\n
take cognizance of offence upon a police report or upon receiving a<\/p>\n
complaint and section 193 of the Cr.P.C only imposed a restriction.<\/p>\n
However, there is nothing in Chapter XIV to impair the power of Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, First Class taking cognizance of the offence on the strength of<\/p>\n
territorial region. However, in para 14 of the same judgment it has been<\/p>\n
observed that jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the<\/p>\n
question of enquiry or trial arises and it has further been observed that<\/p>\n
after taking cognizance the Magistrate may have to decide as to the court<\/p>\n
which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and then situation<\/p>\n
would reach only during the post cognizance stage and not earlier. Further<\/p>\n
in para 15 of the decision reported in 1999 (8) SCC 686 (Trisuns<\/p>\n
Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwar & Ors.) it has been held that<\/p>\n
the High Court without considering any of the aforesaid legal aspect<\/p>\n
reached erroneous conclusion that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,<\/p>\n
Gandhidham has no jurisdiction to taken cognizance of the offence as<\/p>\n
alleged merely because such offence could have been committed out side<\/p>\n
the territorial limits of the State of Gujarat without being apprised of the<\/p>\n
fuller conspectus a decision on the question of jurisdiction should not have<\/p>\n
been taken by the High Court at a grossly premature stage. Hence, from<\/p>\n
perusal of paras 14 and 15 it is apparent that in the facts and circumstances
\n                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
of this case FIR itself was quashed giving opportunity to the I.O or the<\/p>\n
Investigating Authority to go into the question of jurisdiction whether any<\/p>\n
part of the cause of action has arose in the territorial jurisdiction and even<\/p>\n
at the stage of investigation itself the FIR was quashed though this<\/p>\n
decision itself has held that taking into consideration the fact that the<\/p>\n
Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction. He may have taken the decision<\/p>\n
to transfer it having found that there is no territorial jurisdiction at all after<\/p>\n
investigation and the most important aspects and facts that the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate did not take into consideration the allegation and imputation of<\/p>\n
Section 179 regarding the consequence ensued as it was the company who<\/p>\n
was going at loss. However, if a part of cause of action arose at two places<\/p>\n
then the other place may have jurisdiction, however, under the present<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, since the case concerns with a<\/p>\n
complaint case and the investigation, the question for jurisdiction comes<\/p>\n
and falls during enquiry and trial. However, in a complaint case when the<\/p>\n
complaint is filed and the Magistrate applies its mind, the cognizance is<\/p>\n
said to have been taken at that stage itself when the Court applied its mind<\/p>\n
for proceeding with the complaint and taking the statement of the<\/p>\n
complainant and its witnesses and after taking this cognizance the stage of<\/p>\n
enquiry proceeds when the court proceeds to take the statement of the<\/p>\n
complainant and his witnesses and thereafter the stage of 203 and 204 of<\/p>\n
the Cr.P.C comes where the summon is either ordered to be issued if the<\/p>\n
court satisfies that offence is made out against the accused persons and the<\/p>\n
accused has implication in the crime and hence, in the decisions relied<\/p>\n
upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party even in para 14 and 15
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
         established that Chapter XIII is with regard to the enquiry and trial and<\/p>\n
         hence, the jurisdiction is concerned not at the stage of cognizance but the<\/p>\n
         jurisdiction of the Court applies for enquiry and trial though not at the<\/p>\n
         stage of taking cognizance. Even applying this principle, the court has not<\/p>\n
         territorial jurisdiction to enquire and hence the impugned order is an order<\/p>\n
         issuing process against the accused persons after taking cognizance<\/p>\n
         passing through the stage of enquiry and since no part of the cause of<\/p>\n
         action arose in the territory of the Patna as alleged in the complaint<\/p>\n
         petition and nothing has been show to take that any occurrence took place<\/p>\n
         at Patna nor the consequence even ensue at Patna and hence the Patna<\/p>\n
         Court has no territorial jurisdiction and hence the impugned order is not<\/p>\n
         only the order of taking cognizance but order issuing process after taking<\/p>\n
         cognizance in a complaint case which is squarely covered by the decision<\/p>\n
         reported in 2008(3) PLJR 367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of<\/p>\n
         Rajasthan & Anr.) and PLJR 2009 (4) PLJR 1 SC Section (Shri<\/p>\n
         Rajendra Ram Chandra Kavelekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)<\/p>\n
         as stated above and hence the impugned order is set aside and the petition<\/p>\n
         is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Kundan                                         (Gopal Prasad, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.229 of 2008 DEBASISH DEY, SON OF LATE BIJAY KUMAR DEY, RESIDENT OF B.G. COLONY, RAILWAY QUARTR NO. 6\/B, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT BONGAIGAON (ASSAM). …………….. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nDebasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2420,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010"},"wordCount":2420,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010","name":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T03:13:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/debasish-dey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-anr-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Debasish Dey vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}