Prannath Gupta and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

J.N. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur and the en tire complaint case bearing No. 1607 of 2005.

The short point raised by the petitioner in this case is that there is no whisper in the complaint petition with regard to any happenings or any incident or any demand of dowry etc. by the accused persons at Bhagalpur. The entire complaint shows that whatever incident has happened or whatever demand of dowry etc have been made was at Patna matrimonial home of the complainant. The complainant, as alleged, was finally ousted from her matrimonial home on 20.5.2004 and thereafter she went back to Bhagalpur There is no allegation of any demand of dowry etc. from the complainant or her parents or any family members at Bhagalpur personally or by any communication. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Bhagalpur court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance in this case.

In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, . In that case the Apex Court in somewhat identical circumstances held that as the complainant had not disclosed any demand of dowry or commission of any act at the place within the jurisdiction of the court, the complaint was not maintainable and as such the Apex Court quashed the cognizance order and allowed the appeal of the appellants.

From perusal of the complaint in the present case it appears that the complainant was married on 6.7.2003. After her marriage she came to her matrimonial home at Patna. Thereafter, whatever happenings and incidents or demand of dowry which has been alleged in the complaint, all have been alleged to have happened in the matrimonial home at Patna itself. It is also alleged that the parents and other relations of the complainant had come to Patna for rapprochement but the same failed. Thereafter, complainant was ousted from her Patna matrimonial home on 20.5.2004. From the complaint it appears that there is no whisper at all with regard to any incident or demand of dowry by the accused persons made or communicated to the complainant or her parents or relations at Bhagalpur. Thus, it appears that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of court at Bhagalpur and thus the Bhagalpur court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the settled law referred to above and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute this legal position but submits that the opposite party may be given liberty to withdraw the complaint from the court of Bhagalpur and file the same before an appropriate court within whose jurisdiction cause of action arise.

In that view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur in 1607 of 2005 and the connected proceeding is hereby quashed with liberty to the complainant to take appropriate steps for filing of complaint before any appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.