Petitioners challenged the territorial jurisdiction of Patna Court wherein criminal proceedings were pending, arguing cause of action lay in Vaishali. Court held some events occurred in Patna validating jurisdiction and dismissed petition.
Petition dismissed with liberty to raise all points before the court below during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.631 of 2011
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
4 14-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. In this case, this Court vide order dated 9.2.2011 had issued the notice to the O.P. No. 2 under registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process.
3. On perusal of the record it appears that the notice was received by the mother of the complainant and service of notice on O.P. No. 2 has already been accepted by this Court, vide order dated 2.8.2011. No one has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 even after the proper service of notice.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.631 of 2011 (4) dt.14-09-2012
2 / 4
4. From the complaint petition it appears that the allegation has been made that the O.P. No. 2 was married with Satyendra Kumar @ Bhola on 7.6.2006 as per the Hindu rites and customs and on the next day when she went to her matrimonial house then her mother-in-law and all her sisters-in-law started teasing the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry. On 11.6.2006 her father had gone with the gift to bring her, the accused persons kept all articles meant for complainant and rest articles were thrown by the accused persons and they also humiliated her father. On 23.6.2006 her husband cunningly brought her to Jhamanganj from the father’s house, kept her properly for some period, later on she was badly treated by the accused persons and were demanding money and different articles such as T.V. and Gold chain. On 10.10.2007, it has been alleged, her mother-in-law, Sunita Devi, her all Nanads and her husband had brutally assaulted her and also kept her under lock and key and did not provide any meal. She could inform this incident to her parents and instantly her father and her close relatives had come to her in laws’ place, Jhamanganj and with the help of the local persons the complainant came to Patna with her father. Again the complainant had gone to her in laws’ place on 27.2.2008 where for two months she was treated fairly and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.631 of 2011 (4) dt.14-09-2012
3 / 4
thereafter again accused persons have started torturing the complainant. In the complaint petition it has also been stated that in the month of January 2010 when she was in the house of her father at Patna then her mother-in-law and her husband came there, started abusing her and also demanded dowry which has been narrated in the complaint petition.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Patna Court has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance as all cause of action has taken place in the district of Vaishali and in support of contention relied on a judgment (2004) 8 SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police Chennai) and another 2010 (4) PLJR 759 (Naresh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar).
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgments completely cover the case of the petitioner as the Hon’ble supreme Court has held that if no cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the court which has taken cognizance, in that circumstance, the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be quashed.
7. The counsel for the State has pointed out the statements made in the complaint petition shows that some portion of the incident has taken place at Patna and submitted that judgments that have been cited by the petitioner are not applicable
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.631 of 2011 (4) dt.14-09-2012
4 / 4
to the facts of this case.
8. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, the aforesaid judgments that have been cited by the petitioners show that in a case, no cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the court who has taken cognizance, in that circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, the continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. From the narration of facts it appears that certain events has/had taken place at Patna and as such the Civil Court, Patna has rightly taken cognizance. Hence, this Court does not find any substance in the submission of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the court below during the trial.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Patna Court had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance though the majority of cause of action occurred in Vaishali district.
Whether continuation of proceedings without jurisdiction amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police ChennaiReferred¶25
(2004) 8 SCC 100 Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police Chennai · Who else cites this
Naresh Prasad Singh Vs. State of BiharReferred¶25
2010 (4) PLJR 759 Naresh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Satyendra Kumar @ Bhola or others
The State Of Bihar or others
Shivaji Pandey
Mahesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
