Ranjit Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1253 Jhar

                                         1                   Cr.M.P. No. 705 of 2013




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 705 of 2013

----

1.Ranjit Kumar Sinha, son of Bishundeo Prasad

2.Bishnudeo Prasad @ Bishundeo Prasad, son of late Keso Prasad Both residents of village Mallepur, P.O. and P.S. Mallepur, District Jamui, Bihar .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Rakhi Devi, daughter of Sri Arjun Prasad, resident of Village- Barmasiya, Near Football Ground, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkkhand .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Special P.P.

----

5/22.03.2023 Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

It appears that O.P.No.2 has appeared and on the prayer of

the O.P.No.2 the matter was adjourned on 15.9.2022.

Today, when the matter was called out, on repeated call,

nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and that is why this

matter has been heard on merits.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1694 of 2007 for

the offence under sections 498A, 323, 346 and 406 of the Indian Penal

Code as also the order taking cognizance dated 25.08.2008, pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that marriage

between the petitioner no.1 and O.P.No.2 was solemnized on 29.4.2004

in the District of Deoghar at Vidyanath Dham Temple, according to Hindu

rites and at the time of marriage, as stated in the complaint petition,

commodities worth Rs.1,50,000/- has been given by way of gift and

thereafter a daughter namely Juhi has taken birth from their wedlock,

but after one year from the date of solemnization of marriage i.e. with

effect from 21.11.2005, the petitioners have started torturing O.P.No.2

for the purpose of fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry and again in

between the period of one year another daughter has taken birth. It has

been alleged that in the in-laws' house also she was assaulted for the

purpose of non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry and as such the

instant complaint case has been instituted on 9.10.2007.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 who happens to be the husband

of the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.2 is the father in law of the

O.P.No.2. He submits that the case has been filed against other in-laws

also and the learned court has taken congnizance against the three

persons only who are the petitioners and mother in law. He further

submits that in the entire complaint, there is allegation of occurrence in

the District of Deoghar and Jamui and marriage took place at Deoghar

and Jamui is the place where the in-laws are residing. He submits that

this case has been filed in Dhanbad and he submits that there is no

cause of action arising in Dhanbad and in that view of the matter that

learned court is having no jurisdiction. To buttress his argument, he

relied in the case of "Bhura Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and

Another", (2008) 11 SCC 103. Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is

quoted hereinbelow:

"6.The facts stated in the complaint discloses that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri

Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. ON the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. "

He further submits that identical was the situation in the

case of "Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and

Another" (2004) 8 SCC 100. Paragraph nos.13, 14 and 19 of the said

judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"13. While in civil cases, normally the expression "cause of action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression "cause of action" is, therefore, not a stranger to criminal cases.

14. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise.

19.When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with

the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed."

Relying on these two judgments and in the case of

"Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and

Another"(supra), he submits that case was also arising under section

498A of the IPC and other sections and considering the jurisdiction, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the same. He further submits that

order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law and what are the

prima facie materials are not disclosed in the order taking cognizance.

Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State submits that the learned court has rightly proceeded in

the matter and stay has been vacated and process under section 82

Cr.P.C has been issued against the wife of Bishnudeo Prasad @ Bishundeo

Prasad. He submits that there is no illegality in the order taking

cognizance.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels

appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the

contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance

and finds that the entire allegation is said to be only of Deoghar or

Jamui. In the complaint case, it has been disclosed that marriage took

place at Deoghar and the husband and the in-laws are residing in Jamui.

In the complaint case it has not been disclosed that how she has filed

the case at Dhanbad. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has

answered this aspect of the matter that when forcefully the in-laws have

thrown away the daughter in law from the house and if she is residing

along with the parents, the case can be filed there also. In the case in

hand, it is not averred that she has been thrown away from the house of

in-laws and it is also not disclosed that she is residing with her parents at

Dhanbad. On the other hand, looking into the two judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

it transpires that the Dhanbad court is lacking the jurisdiction. The

cognizance has been taken under Section 498A and 406 of I.P.C.

In the above facts, reasons and the analysis, entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1694 of 2007 for the

offence under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as also

the order taking cognizance dated 25.08.2008, pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed.

Cr.M.P. No.705 of 2013 is allowed and disposed of.

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/