Patna High Court - Orders
Krishnendu Chaterjee & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21531 of 2012
======================================================
1. Krishnendu Chaterjee , son of Arobindo Chaterjee
2. Arobindo Chaterjee, son of Late G.B. Chaterjee
Both are resident of 79A, Ravindra Palli, Faizabad Road, P.S. Gazipur,
District - Luknow (U.P.)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumkum Ray, D/o Late Nihar Kanti Roy, resident of M-16 S.K.
Nagar, P.S. - Budha Colony, District -Patna.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Opposite Party/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 30-04-2014Heard Sri T.N. Maitin, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel , who has appeared on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2.
Two petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.7.2011 passed by Smt. Niharika, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 417 & 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 955(C) of 2011.
Short fact of the case is that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that by making false statement Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21531 of 2012 (7) dt.30-04-2014 2/4 petitioner no. 1 solemnized marriage with the complainant. The fact regarding impotency was known both to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2/ father of petitioner no. 1. It has been alleged that fact regarding impotency of petitioner no. 1 was known to the petitioner no. 2, even then, marriage was solemnized. In the marriage certain ornaments were given. After solemnization of marriage, while the complainant was going to her in -laws house on train she was informed by the petitioner no. 1 that he was impotent. Subsequently, at matrimonial home she was also humiliated and no physical relation could be resumed. It has also been alleged that petitioner no. 1 was earlier got married with a lady. Subsequently, divorce petition was filed and later compromise decree was prepared in the said case. On aforesaid ground complaint was filed. During enquiry complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and also enquiry witnesses were examined, and finally, the learned Magistrate by order dated 29.7.2011 has passed the order of cognizance.
Sri Maitin, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has assailed the order of cognizance on two grounds. Firstly, it has been argued that on perusal of the complaint petition no offence is made out either under Section Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21531 of 2012 (7) dt.30-04-2014 3/4 417 or 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly, it has been argued that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where complaint petition was filed. He submits that in the entire complaint petition nothing has been indicated regarding torture for demand of dowry. On aforesaid two grounds it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance.
Smt. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel, for complainant/ opposite party no. 2 submits that order of cognizance has been passed on the basis of materials in the complaint petition as well as materials brought on record during enquiry. She submits that both the accused persons were knowing well that petitioner no. 1 was impotent, even then marriage was solemnized and in marriage ornaments were given, which have already been taken by the accused persons. She submits that the allegation attracts the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. She submits that in the complaint petition there is allegation of humiliation also, and as such, according to her, offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is also made out.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that marriage was solemnized in the district of Patna i.e. where complaint case was filed and cognizance order was passed. There Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21531 of 2012 (7) dt.30-04-2014 4/4 is allegation that both accused were knowing the fact regarding impotency of petitioner no. 1 and there after marriage was solemnized at Patna, cause of action arose at Patna. It hardly matters whether other offences were committed at different places. It is settled law that if in one transaction offences have been committed at different places complaint / F.I.R. can be lodged at any one of the places where part of cause of action arose. In any view of the matter on perusal of the complaint petition and order of cognizance, I do not find any apparent defect warranting interference. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-