Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 498A—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Section 3/4—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 177 and 482—Cruelty—Cognizance of offence—Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers—If allegations set out in complaint does not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent power—This is a clear case of abuse to process of Court, particularly when Court of Muzaffarpur had taken cognizance ignoring factual matrix that offences were alleged to be committed either at Bangalore or at Khagaria—Allegation of demand of dowry is not against any specific person, rather a general and vague allegation has been made—Cognizance order quashed—Complainant given liberty to file a fresh case before Court having jurisdiction to entertain such complaint—Cr. Misc. Application allowed. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14)

Cases Referred:

R. L. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC 866; Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1992 supp.(1) SCC, 335 : 1992, SCC (Cri. 426); Pramod Suryavan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 11 SCC 608; Dhruv Ram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191—Relied

Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present quashing application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance order dated 09.07.2015 passed by S.D.J.M., East Muzzafarpur in Complaint Case No. C- 206/15/Trial No. 2206 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 498 A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1967.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 is the husband and petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and dewar of the complainant/O.P. No. 2, respectively.

4. According to them, marriage was solemnized between petitioner no. 1 with complainant/O.P. No. 2 on 09.02.2014. It has been argued that O.P. No. 2 is the wife but marriage with petitioner has never been consummated. They went to their place of work at Banglore but in Banglore also the marriage could not be consummated.

5. Learned counsel submits that from the allegation made in the complaint and S.A. that O.P. No. 2 was tortured at Banglore for not transferring her salary in the account of the petitioner no. 1. He further alleged that the second story of torture was alleged to be made in Khagaria, while she came for chhath puja in the year 2018. The third story of torture was alleged to be made at Banglore in the White Field Park. He further submits that there is absolutely no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur and as such, filing case at Muzaffarpur and taking cognizance of the reference at Muzaffarpur is barred under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that present case suffers for want of jurisdiction and taking cognizance in a non-jurisdiction case is particularly abuse to the process of the Court.

6. Before dealing with the merit of the present quashing application, it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the inherited power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (Act no. 2 of the 74) earlier, was in Section 561 A of the Cr.P.C. 1898 (Act no. 5 of 1898). The said Section saves the inherent power of the High Court to make fresh orders as measure necessary in 3 different situations—

A. To give effect to an order under this Court.

B. To prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

C. To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

7. In this regard 3 Judge Bench defence reported in A.I.R. 1960 Supreme Court 866 (R. L. Kapoor) vs. State of Punjab. From the other cases where the inherited jurisdiction to cause the proceeding can and should be associated under—

(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respe