Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Nitin Mukesh Jha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 26 July, 2010

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Cr.Misc. No.44053 of 2009
             1. NITIN MUKESH JHA S/O MANOHAR JHA
             2. MANOHAR JHA S/O LATE BABU NANDAN JHA
               @ LATE DEONARAYAN JHA
             3. SMT.PRABHA DEVI W/O MANOHAR JHA
                                Versus
             1. STATE OF BIHAR
             2. SMT. KALYANI D/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
               W/O NITIN MUKESH JHA
                              ************
For the Petitioner                  : Mr. Hare Krishna
                                      Mr. Davendra Kumar Sinha
For the Complainant                 : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, Adv.
For the State                       : Mr. Chandrasen Pd.Singh, App.


3.     26.7.2010

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by S.K.J.M., Begusarai, who has dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Section 245 (1) II of the Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint case no. 891 (C)/2008.

By the last order the opposite party no. 2 was noticed who has appeared today in court through the duly executed vakalatnama.

The case of the opposite party no. 2 is that she was married to the petitioner no. 1 on 29.1.2007 and started her marital life with him but unfortunately she was constantly harassed for ends of dowry. In the complaint she had added that for a certain period of time she was brought to Keshawa within the district of Begusarai, which was the ancestral house of the accused persons and kept confined there and also tortured.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact from the addresses of the complainant and the accused persons as also the other documents, it is apparent that they used to reside permanently in Gudgaon/Delhi and, therefore, the court of Begusarai has no jurisdiction in the matter.

However, I am not persuaded by the argument of the learned court with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, since it is a well established principle that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a bundle of facts which cannot be gone into at this stage. Especially, when there is a specific averment in the complaint that the complainant was brought by the accused persons within the jurisdiction of Begusarai and tortured there as well.

In view of such, this application is dismissed.

Fahad.                             (Anjana Prakash, J)