Nand Kishore Yadav and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another

Abhijit Sinha, J.—This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of all the five persons impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 908C/2003 is for the quashing of the order dated 24.1.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No. 306 of 2006 by Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. -III. Begusarai, whereby while allowing the Revision he has set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Begusarai, in the aforesaid complaint case dismissing the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. and the consequential order dated 30.6.2006 following the revisional order dated 24.1.2006 whereunder cognizance u/s 304A/34 I.P.C has been taken against the petitioners. The case of the complainant as unfolded in the complaint petition filed by one Ram Binay Yadav inter alia is that the marriage of his sister, Bimal Kumari was solemnized with Nand Kishore Yadav, son of Ram Prakash Yadav of village Kumbhi within Bariyarpur P.S. in the District of Begusprai whereafter she left for her marital home at Kumbhi. It is alleged that after sometime the husband, father-in-law and dewars Hemnath Yadav and Rambabu Yadav started pressurising her to bring gold and cash apart from a motorcycle from her father and brother by way of dowry and for the non-fulfilment thereof she was subjected to various forms of cruelty including assault, being locked in the room and making her starve for days together. It is also alleged that on a few occasions she used to be ousted from her Sasurai when she came over to her naihar and following Panchayati she would return to the marital home only to be subjected to further cruelty. The two sons and a daughter born out of the wedlock had also come under the influence of the accused persons. It is alleged that in the year 2001, Bimal Kumari was severely assaulted and dispatched to her naihar. It is also alleged that it transpired from a letter written by Nand Kishore Yadav to his brother, a copy whereof was annexed to the Complaint Petition, that it was from that moment it had become their intention to do away with Bimal Kumari. The further case is that Nand Kishore and his brother carried on business in Gugai Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu where Bimal Kumari was taken under a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and there too she was subjected to various forms of torture. Later on, i.e., 6.6.2003, it is alleged, that the complainant received information from Gugai Salem that his sister had been murdered in consequence of a conspiracy hatched at Kumbhi. The complainant claims to have gone first to Kumbhi and then to Gugai Salem and made enquiries regarding the death of his sister from the accused persons but they avoided giving satisfactory answers. The complainant was sanguine that his sister was killed in consequence of a conspiracy of the accused persons. He claims to have submitted a written report to the Police at Cheria Bariyarpur and also to the higher police personnel for registering a case but the same did not evince any response.

It appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after an inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. but the complainant preferred Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2006 against the order of dismissal which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. -lll, Begusarai who remanded the matter back to the trial court for further inquiry and fresh orders. What appears to have weighed with the learned Presiding Judge was that all the witnesses of the complaint examined at the inquiry had supported the complainant''s version and in that view of the matter the inquiring court was not justified in dismissing the complaint.

The short point which falls for consideration is whether the court at Begusarai in the facts and the circumstances of the case had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 304A/34 I.P.C. when admittedly the death of Bimal Kumari had taken place in Gugai Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu.

From the averments in the Complaint Petition there appears two clear allegations:-(1) that Bimal Kumari was subjected to torture at Kumbhi, her Sasurai, for non-payment of dowry and there were intentions to do away with her, and (2) that she was purportedly murdered at Gugai Salem.

Section 304-A I.P.C. postulates a rash and negligent act entailing death of another. The complainant has not alleged any intentional rash or negligent act against the accused persons which resulted in the death of Bimal Kumari. In this connection, the petitioners have annexed the medical certificate of cause of death which indicates that death was due to acute myocardial infraction which in common parlance would mean a massive heart attack.

This only goes to show that the court at Begusarai was not inclined to take cognizance of an offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and had restricted the cognizance only to the matter of death of Bimal Kumari.

Section 177 Cr.P.C. reiterates the well established common law rule referred to in Halsbury''s Laws of England that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence; the facts occur and which are alleged to constitute the crime. While in Civil Cases normally the expression "cause of action" is used, in Criminal Cases as stated in Section 177 Cr.P.C. reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. The expression "cause of action" as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. Thus, it consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. If the courts at Begusarai were not inclined to take cognizance of the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and had only restricted itself to the offence u/s 304A I.P.C, to my mind, the same was not sustainable as the death did not take place within territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Begusarai. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the Complaint Petition the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Judgeship of Begusarai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of death of Bimal Kumari. In that view of the matter neither the order of the Revisional Court nor the consequential order dated 30.6.2006 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate following the Revisional Court''s order can be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned orders aforesaid are quashed and the application is allowed. The complaint be returned to O.P. No. 2, who, if he so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.