Ranchi HC-IPC 498A Quashed-Territorial Jurisdiction
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No.223 of 2007
Sraban Kumar Agarwala & Ors. ……Petitioners.
-VersusThe State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..…..Opposite Parties.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioners : Mr. T. R. Bajaj, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Advocate.
1. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22nd May, 2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case no.127 of 2006, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction of the court below. It has been submitted that from the plain reading of the complaint petition it is evident that the entire allegations are related to the place at Murshidabad in the State of West Bengal. There is no allegation of commission of any act within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below. It has been submitted that in the case of Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2666, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code if the alleged acts were of the place falling within another State, a complaint cannot be entertained in the court of another State. In the said case, the complaint was related to the place, falling within the State of Punjab, while the complaint case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court has held that since no cause of action arose in the State of Rajasthan, the Court of that State had no jurisdiction to deal with the said case.
3. Mr. T. R. Bajaj, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the instant case, all the alleged acts are of the place at Murshidabad in the State of West Bengal and there is no allegation of commission of any act or any act, constituting offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, at the place within State of Jharkhand and as such learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, Sahibganj has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The impugned order is, thus, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-Opposite Party no.2, has not disputed the said legal position. He has fairly accepted that the case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhura Ram & Ors. (Supra), as the allegations do not show any cause of action arising in the State of Jharkhand.
5. In view of the above admitted legal and factual position, this petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 22nd May, 2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case no.127 of 2006 is quashed.
6. It is made clear that this order shall not in any way impede the complainant-Opposite Party no.2 to file any such complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)