Patna High Court
Sarita Devi And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)BLJR1483
Author: Prasun Kumar Deb
Bench: Prasun Kumar Deb
JUDGMENT Prasun Kumar Deb, J.
1. The entire criminal proceedings in Complaint case No. 850/96 under Section 323, 498, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of Sri S.D. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, have been sought to be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
2. The petitioner No. 1 Sarita Devi was married to the Complainant (opposite-party No. 2) according to Hindu rites rituals. It is the allegation of the complainant (opposite-party No. 2) that after the marriage, petitioner No. 1 made the life of the complainant hell and always persuaded him to go to her father's house at Kadru within the district of Ranchi and to live there as "Ghardamad". With that plea she was presurrising the complainant and she attempted to consume poison on several occasion only to make the complainant agreeable to her proposal to live as "Ghardamad" in her father's place as like that of her elder sisters who were also living at her father's place at Kadru with their husbands. When ultimately, the complainant did not agree to it, she came down to Ranchi with all her belongings and cash of Rs. 2,000/-. ornaments etc.when the complainant came to Ranchi and wanted to take back the petitioner No. 1 then all other petitioners had assaulted him with fists and blows and he had to return to Giridih. The complaint petition has been filed at Giridih with such allegation. Learned Judicial Magistrate after examining the complainant on S.A. and his witnesses took cognizance under the said sections of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above.
3. Mr. N.N. Tiwari, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner took two grounds to challenge the complaint itself. His first ground is that the complaint is not maintainable at Giridih when the allegation of Maarpeet had been ocurred at Ranchi and the case of theft and enticing away for giving in second marriage as per Section 498 has not been made out. His second submission is that the facts stated in the complaint could not make out any case of criminality against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for and on behalf of the complainant (opposite- party No. 2) submitted that when there is allegation of theft and 498 I.P.C. then even if the Maarpeet had been caused at Kadru within the district of Ranchi, then also when the part of the occurrence had been occured at Giridih, then Giridih Court had the jurisdiction. In this connection, he has referred to a judgment of this Court as reported in 1994 PLJR (1) page 513.
5. Let me take up the case of allegation one by one. As regards the allegation under Section 379, I.P.C., it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 had taken away all her jwellery/ornaments and cash of Rs. 2,000/-, which was given to her by the complainant. The ornaments received by the petitioner No. 1 and the cash as a gift during the time of her marriage of afterwards became her streedhan property and in that view of the matter, if she had taken away those ornaments and cash, it cannot be said to be a case of theft. As regards Section 498, I.P.C, there is no allegation of enticing away rather it is the specific case of the complainant that the petitioner No. 1 had left the matrimonial home for their father's place. It was only stated that at Kadru when the complainant (in formant) went to take away his wife, then it was stated by the other petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 would be given second marriage. So the case of enticing away for giving second marriage prima facie is not made out on the allegation made by the complainant. So, these two allegations having occured at Giridih have no footing to stand and, as such, part of the cause of action arisen at Giridih court has got no basis. Admittedly, Marrpeet took place at Kadru within the district of Ranchi and hence there cannot be any jurisdiction of Giridih Court. The reported ruling is in respect of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code wherein it was held that if the wife has been tortoured at her matrimonial home and had been turned out from the matrimonial home then the wife after coming to her father's place can file complaint petition within the jurisdiction of her father's place. The facts in the present case is completely otherwise as mentioned above.
6. Hence, the first contention of Mr. Tiwari has got much force and the Giridih Court has got no jurisdiction. Regarding Maarpeet, it has been submitted that there is no injury report regarding the Maarpeet. 7. Be it what it may, for an allegation under Section 323, I.P.C., medical report may not be required if the fact of Maarpeet could be established by cogent and reliable evidence but for the allegation of Maarpeet, only the court at Ranchi has got the jurisdiction and the Giridih Court has got no jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, prosecution lodged at Giridih Court has got no jurisdiction and hence the whole of the criminal proceeding as mentioned above, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and hence the same is quashed.
8. This petition is accordingly allowed.