Dismissed

Syed Parvez Ahmad v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC19 Dec 2019CR. MISC./13713/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged an order refusing discharge on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that jurisdictions courts can try cases where the victim took shelter after cruelty at the matrimonial home and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

quashing application dismissed as it had no merit due to the trial court possessing territorial jurisdiction.

Syed Parvez Ahmad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13713 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-496 Year-2013 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Syed Parvez Ahmad Son of Syed Ejazul Haque Resident of Mohalla Powerganj, P.O., P.S. and District-Lohardagga Jharkhand

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

Shabnam Parveen daughter of Late Syed Nazmul Hassan, Wife of Syed parvez Ahmad and Resident of Mohalla-Agarwal Tola, loharwa Ghat, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City District-Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 19-12-2019 Heard the parties.

¶14

2 . This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the order dated 20.12.2016 passed in Alamganj P.S.Case No.170 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No.496 of 2013 whereby prayer for discharge of the petitioner was refused under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

3 . The challenge is on the ground that the court below had no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of the Court below.

¶16

4 . According to complaint based FIR, marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with the petitioner on 23.07.2010 at Mohalla-Agarwal Tola, Lohrwa Ghat, Patnacity.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13713 of 2017(4) dt.19-12-2019 2/4

¶18

After marriage Opposite Party No.2 resided with this petitioner at her matrimonial house in Lohardaga District. However, the elder brother of the petitioner and wife of the elder brother used to complain for insufficient dowry and ornaments brought by Opposite Party No.2 and there was repeated demand of Rs.5,50,000/- and one car. The petitioner started vexing her by writing letters and call on telephone to her brothers for payment of the aforesaid amount. The torture was mental as well as physical. On 22.04.2013, the petitioner assaulted to the complainant with fist and stick as well as leather belt and snatched all her ornaments and clothes. The complainant was thrown away from the house. Thereafter, the complainant was residing in her parents house since 23.04.2013 till filing of the complaint petition.

¶19

5 . On that basis, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Patnacity Court as no offence under Section 498A or 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was ever committed within the jurisdiction of the court below rather the offence was allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Lohardaga in the State of Jharkhand. Even in the complaint petition, it is mentioned that the place of occurrence

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13713 of 2017(4) dt.19-12-2019 3/4

¶21

is Lohardaga in the State of Jharkhand.

¶22

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Opposite Party submits that offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence and law is settled that if the victim resides elsewhere taking shelter after being tortured for non-fulfilment of dowry demand in her matrimonial house, the Court of the place where she has taken shelter has also got jurisdiction.

¶23

7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by a Bench of two Judges was considered in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others by a Bench of three Judges (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 384 and after considering the provisions of Section 177 to 179 of the Cr.P.C., which relates to territorial jurisdiction of the Court for enquiry and trial, held that when the cruelty was allegedly committed in the matrimonial home by the husband or his relatives and the wife is leaving matrimonial home and taking shelter in parental home or some other place located at a different place. The Court of the place of shelter or residents of the wife would have

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13713 of 2017(4) dt.19-12-2019 4/4

¶25

jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

8 . Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rupali Devi case. I do not find that the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction, hence, this application has got no merit and, is accordingly stands dismissed.

¶27

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶28

B.Kr./-

¶29

U T

Syed Parvez Ahmad v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Parvez Ahmad v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarafat Dhannu @ Sharafat @ Dhannu Vs the State of Bihar

Ranjit Rai @ Ranjeet Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bijendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Suman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Mandal Vs The State of Bihar