Krishnadeo Chaurasia v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10499 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2031 Year-2014 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Krishnadeo Chaurasia S/o Ramdeo Chaurasiya Resident of Village Madhurapur Akbarpur, P.S. Warisnagar, O.P. Madhurapur, District Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar and Anr 2.

Rani Raj W/o Krishnadeo Chaurasiya Resident of Village Madhurapur Akbarpur, P.S. Warisnagar, O.P. madhurapur, District Samastipur. At present D/o Shivshankar Chaurasiya, Resident of Village Sulttanpur, P.S. Industrial Area, Hajipur, District Vaishali.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.Upadhyay, App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-05-2019 An order taking cognizance passed by the learned Court below dated 12.12.2014, in Complaint Case No. 2031 of 2014, T.R. No. 5166 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is under challenge in the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has submitted with reference to the complaint petition that most of the occurrence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10499 of 2015(2) dt.10-05-2019 2/3 have taken place outside the jurisdiction of the Hazipur Court and, therefore, the order taking cognizance suffers from jurisdictional error. He has secondly submitted that though in the complaint petition the complainant states that the police had refused to register the First Information Report, there is no material to suggest that the complainant ever approached the Superintendent of Police of the District, complaining nonregistration of the First Information Report. He has lastly submitted that since the complainant has remarried, in the interest of justice, the criminal prosecution should be quashed.

3. None of the grounds, canvassed by the petitioner, in my opinion, is sustainable.

4. This is not in dispute that the complainant has been residing within the jurisdiction of Hazipur Court after she had to leave her matrimonial home. It cannot be, therefore, said that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance.

5. So far as next contention is concerned, that the complainant ought to have approached the Superintendent of Police, in my considered view, the same cannot be a basis for interfering with the order taking cognizance. In a complaint case, the Judicial Magistrate's duty is confined as to see whether

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10499 of 2015(2) dt.10-05-2019 3/3 an offence is made out or not and if the court taking cognizance has jurisdiction, he is duty bound to take cognizance, if an offence is made out. The legality of the order taking cognizance cannot be tested on the ground of the conduct of the complainant of not approaching the Superintendent of Police, so as to ensure registration of the F.I.R.

6. So far as the last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in my view, it has no force at all. Subsequent remarriage of the complainant cannot be a ground for quashing of a criminal case and order taking cognizance.

7. I do not find any merit in this application for the aforesaid reason.

8. This application is accordingly dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U