I.A. No. 2483 of 2008

1. This application has been filed for amendment in the prayer of the main application in view of the subsequent development as during pendency of this application, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 06.06.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara and therefore the petitioner also wants to challenge the said order taking cognizance.

2. Since the prayer made in this application seems to have a direct nexus with the prayer made in the main application and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed.

3. The I.A. No. 2483 of 2008 shall be treated as part of the main application.

Cr. M.P. No. 1053 of 2007

4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.

5. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 42 of 2007 (G.R. No. 96 of 2007), registered for offences punishable u/s 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Consequent to I.A. No. 2483 of 2008 having been allowed, the petitioner has also made a challenge to the order dated 06.06.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire incident as alleged in the complaint initially filed, is said to have been taken place either at Bokaro or at Asansol and there being no averment in the complaint petition of any incident having been taken place at Jamtara and as such the Court at Jamtara does not have territorial jurisdiction to try this case. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Amarendu Jyoti and Others vs. State of Chhatisgarh and Others, (2014) 12 SCC 362 as well as the Judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 604 of 2010 in the case of Rajkishori Devi and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another.

7. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that since on account of the opposite party No. 2 having started residing at her parental house, the same was on account of consequence of the offence and therefore the Court at Jamtara has jurisdiction to try the case. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2011) 11 SCC 301.

8. Initially a complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 in which it was stated that she was married with the petitioner on 26.02.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged that after some time the complainant was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents for purchasing a fridge but on account of inability shown by her parents in fulfilling the said demand, the petitioner had started ill-treating the complainant. Although the father and brother of the complainant had tried to persuade the accused persons to settle the matter but the torture continued and ultimately on 06.08.2000, the complainant was mercilessly assaulted by the accused Mridu Shankar Dey Sarkar and driven out from her matrimonial home. In January, 2001 the complainant gave birth to a male child and the entire expenses were borne by her father. Ultimately at the instance of well-wishers, the matter was once again settled and the complaint started living at her matrimonial home, but she was once again assaulted by the petitioner and others. The dispute was once again settled and it was agreed that the complaint shall reside at the work place of the petitioner at Bokaro, who shall keep the complaint