Patna High Court - Orders
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Barnwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2009
Author: Abhijit Sinha
Bench: Abhijit Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.19792 of 2007
1. SUDHIR KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR BARNWAL, Son of
Late Durga Prasad,resident of Purani Gudari
Bazar, P.S.Bettiah, District-West Champaran,
Presently residing at 422-3050 EllesmereRoad,
Scarborong, on MIE-5E-6,Canada.
2. Smt. Binita Goel, wife of Late Durga Prasad
3. Deepak Kumar Barnwal, Son of Late DurgaPrasad
4. Shishir Kumar Barnwal,Son of Late DurgaPrasad
5. Ashwani Kumar Barnwal@Bittu,son of Late Durga
Prasad
All residents of Purani Bazar,P.S. Bettiah,
District-West Champaran
----------- Petitioners
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Smt. Anshu Kumari, Wife of Sudhir Kumar
Barnwal, presently residing at Gandhi Nagar
Near Buddha Dental College,P.S.PatrakarNagar,
District-Patna ---- Opp.Parties.
-----------
For the petitioners:Sri SatyabrataVerma,Advocate
For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya,APP
For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr.AshwiniKr.Singh,Advocate
------------
O R D E R
All the five persons arrayed as accused
in Complaint Case no.187C of 2007, giving rise
to Kadam Kuan( Patrakar Nagar) P.S. Case No.174
of 2007, have preferred this application for
quashing the entire F.I.R. of the aforesaid
Kadam Kuan P.S., registered under Sections 498A,
379 I.P.C. as also Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
One Anshu Kumari, the complainant, filed
-2-
the aforesaid complaint case which was
transmitted to the concerned Police Station
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis
thereof the aforesaid Kadam Kuan P.S. case came
to be registered. According to the
complainant/informant, her marriage with Sudhir
Kumar Barnwal, petitioner no.1, was solemnized
on 2.5.2004 at Patna whereat gifts including
cash, ornaments and other articles worth Rs.10
Lacs was given in presentation by the parents of
the informant. It is further alleged that the
husband of the complainant/informant is a
Software Engineer working in Canada who had
remained in Bettiah, the matrimonial home of the
complainant, till September 2004 and,
thereafter, had left for Canada leaving the
informant in the matrimonial home. It is alleged
that the husband of the complainant during his
stay at Bettiah used to torture the complainant
mentally and physically for not bringing
handsome dowry commensurate with their status.
It is further alleged that after the departure
of her husband, the complainant/informant was
subjected to severe harassment and humiliation
at the hands of the remaining accused and she
-3-
was insulted and abused for not bringing
sufficient dowry and they kept insisting that
her parents should furnish a substantial amount
to compensate the loss suffered by them and
recover their image as they claimed to have
suffered in the estimation of the public and
relatives. As the demand remained unfulfilled,
her mother-in-law, on one occasion, caught hold
of her neck and attempted to strangulate her to
death even as the other accused persons
instigated the mother-in-law to get rid of the
complainant but somehow or the other she managed
to save herself. The complainant haunted by
shock and pain afflicted by her physical and
mental torture at the greedy attitude of the
accused persons conveyed her tales of woe to her
parents, but her parents by dint of having spent
valuable sum over the marriage could not
entertain the demands of the in-laws of the
complainant/informant. The in-laws expressed
their unwillingness to accommodate the
complainant/informant in the matrimonial home
unless the complainant/informant had arranged
money to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs from her parents
and eventually she became sick and indisposed
-4-
and notwithstanding her indisposition she
attempted to get into contact with her husband
through internet and mobile phone but she was
not bestowed with any favourable response. The
accused persons are said to have neglected the
complainant/informant in respect of her food and
care and her physical condition deteriorated day
by day. No medical care was given to her and the
accused persons started taunting her and gave
out that her husband would marry another lady in
Canada after divorcing her. This, too, appears
to be a plan of the accused to oust her from the
matrimonial home in preparation for the divorce
and of the husband contacting a second marriage.
It is said that when it became imminent that by
her stay in the matrimonial home she would not
be able to survive any more she contacted her
parents who came to Bettiah and took her away
from Patna. The accused persons are said to have
confiscated all her ornaments and belongings
given to her at the time of marriage. Attempt to
settle the disputes through persuasion and
reasonings proved fruitless. Hence the
complaint.
It has been submitted on behalf of the
-5-
petitioners that when petitioner no.1 left for
Canada, he was anxious that the informant joins
him at Canada but as she did not have a passport
an application was made for the same on
17.5.2004 but the issuance thereof having been
delayed, the informant could not accompany him
to Canada. Finally, petitioner no.1 represented
before the Chief Passport Officer through letter
dated 20.3.2005 for expediting the matter. It is
further submitted that after the departure of
the husband , the informant was staying with her
parents in Nepal where her father was posted as
Junior Registrar, Medicine Department at
National Medical College, Shiksha Hospital, and
in course thereof she used to often visit her
sister at Mumbai where she was working and
although the husband made several requests to
the wife to stay with his mother at Bettiah she
did not agree to the same as she had become more
accustomed to the fast life of a Metropolitan
City, and as such, she chose to stay with her
parents and sister. It is further submitted that
from a bare perusal of the allegation made in
the F.I.R. it would be manifest that the
informant was not ousted from her matrimonial
-6-
home, rather she on of her own free-will and
volition left the matrimonial home with her
parents and was residing with them since March
2005. It is further submitted that it would be
apparent from the allegations made in the F.I.R.
that the entire allegations as attributed to the
petitioners were allegedly committed at the
matrimonial home in Bettiah in the district of
West Champaran and no portion thereof took place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
at Patna. It was further submitted that the
court at Patna had erred in entertaining the
F.I.R. when it did not have the jurisdiction for
the trial to be held at Patna and without
appreciating the fact directed the police to
register the present F.I.R.
Reference in this connection was sought
to be placed on the case of Suresh Das Harijan
Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007(3) PLJR
269 and Y.Abraham Ajith vrs. Inspector of Police
,reported in (2004)8SCC 100
I have perused the F.I.R. and therefrom
it appears that the marriage took place as far
back in the year 2004 and the Opp.Party no.2
since then was residing at the Matrimonial home
-7-
in the district of West Champaran. All alleged
acts of torture etc. took place at the home of
the husband at Bettiah. . Therefore, it is
apparent that the case falls squarely under the
jurisdiction of the court in West Champaran in
view of Section 177 Cr.P.C. which reads as
follows:
"Ordinary place of enquiry and trial:
"Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed."
From what has been discussed above, it
is clear that since all parts of the alleged
occurrence of torturing and demand of additional
dowry was made within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court at Bettiah in the
District of West Champaran it was only the court
within the Judgeship of West Champaran at
Bettiah which had the jurisdiction to entertain
and take cognizance in the matter and the court
at Patna had no jurisdiction to make any enquiry
or conduct the trial as no part of the
occurrence took place within its territorial
jurisdiction at Patna.
Due regard being had to the facts and
-8-
circumstances of the case, the impugned order
taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the
application is allowed.
The lower court is directed to return the
complaint to Opp.Party no.2 for filing the same before the
appropriate court, if so advised.
(Abhijit Sinha, J.)
Patna High Court,Patna
Dated : the 26th February,2009
Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.