Jharkhand High Court
Dr.Pankaj Kumar & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 21 February, 2013
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.M.P.No.902 of 2012
1.Dr. Pankaj Kumar
2.Janardhan Singh @ Janardhan Pd. Singh
3. Gayatri Devi ...............................................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another..............Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioners : Mr.Indrajit Sinha
For the State :A.P.P
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Manoj Tandon
6/ 21.2.13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
This application was initially filed for quashing of the FIR of Mahila P.S case no.10 of 2011 instituted under Sections 313, 323, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, upon submission of the charge sheet when the cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 25.6.2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the same was also challenged by way of interlocutory application.
Basically both the FIR as well as order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.
In this regard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per the allegation made in the FIR, whatever overt acts have been alleged to have been committed, all those overt acts have allegedly been committed either at Bangalore or at a place falling within the District of Nalanda.
In this regard, it was further submitted that though there has been allegations of demand of dowry and also allegation of assault at Ranchi but that allegation has been made against one Anil Singh as well as husband of the informant but the Investigating Officer did not find that allegation to be true against Anil Singh and that no charge sheet was submitted either under Section 313 or 323 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the court should not have taken cognizance of the offfence against these petitioners who have never been alleged to have committed any overt act at the place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which has taken cognizance of the offence and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.
As against this, Mr.Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there has been specific allegation in the FIR about the overt act being committed constituting offence under Section 498A and also other offences at Ranchi and as such the court at Ranchi does have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and thereby neither the FIR nor the order taking cognizance warrants to be quashed.
I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
From perusal of the FIR, it does appear that the allegations were made in the FIR about the commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other offences at Bangalore and at the same time, allegations have also been made regarding overt act being committed by the husband and one Anil Singh constituting offence under Section 498A at Ranchi and thereby the court at Ranchi does have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, in spite of the fact that one of the accused Anil Singh was not sent up for trial.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, this application stands dismissed.
( R. R. Prasad, J.) ND/