Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38977 of 2011
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- NAWADA

1. Manoj Vishwakarma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Vishwakarma, Resident of Mohalla
Heavy Water Colony, Danteshwar, Pratap Nagar, Quarter No.EO/53, District
Barauda (Gujrat)

2. Shyama Devi, Wife of Late Sukhdeo Vishwakarma, Resident of Mohalla Heavy
Water Colony, Danteshwar, Pratap Nagar, Quarter No.EO/53, District Barauda

3. Ashok Vishwakarma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Vishwakarma

4. Bhinee Devi, Daughter of Late Sukhdeo Vishwakarma

5. Reeta Vishwakarma, Wife of Ashok Vishwakarma
All are Resident of Mohalla Shyampark, Extention Apposite Modern Industries
Sahibawad, District Gajiyabad (U.P.)

6. Uma Shankar Vishwakarma @ Shiv Shankar Vishwakarma, Son of Late Daho
Mistry, Resident of Village Fulka Gumati Jamalpur, P.S. Akbarpur, District
…. …. Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chanda Vishwakarma, Wife of Manoj Vishwakarma, Daughter of Kali Mistri,
Resident of Mohalla Ram Nagar (Manger Bigha), Near Circuit House, Nawada,
P.S. District Nawada
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishnadeo Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

Date: 12-09-2017

The petitioners are accused in Complaint Case No.1134 of

2010, Trial No.2352 of 2010, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Nawada and

they have filed this application seeking quashing of order dated 08.08.2011,

passed by the said court whereby cognizance of the offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against all accused persons

and summons have been issued against all petitioners to stand trial in this


2. A short fact giving rise to the complaint is that the Chanda
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38977 of 2011 dt.12-09-2017

2 /3

Vishwakarma, opposite party no.2-complainant, was married with Manoj

Vishwakarma on 13.12.2002. Just after marriage, all accused persons

started torturing her to realize further demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry.

Whenever she protested, she was assaulted by the accused persons. The

intensity of torture increased after her husband getting into Central

Government service. On 04.09.2010, all accused persons assaulted her with

lathi and ousted the complainant from matrimonial home and she submitted

written information to the Officer-in-Charge of Barauda and she also went

to the concerned police station but the case was not registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that S.D.J.M.,

Nawada has got no jurisdiction to do any enquiry or trial in this case as no

part of the occurrence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of

Nawada. Further submission is that when the husband of the complainant

filed a divorce suit being Case No.42 of 2010 before the Civil Judge Court,

Vadodra, the present complaint has been filed. Learned counsel places

reliance in the case of Bhura Ram Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr.,

reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 367 (SC) and Y. Abraham Ajith Ors. Vs.

Inspector of Police, Chennai Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100.

4. However, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2

but the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is

no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Having gone through the rival contentions of both sides and

on perusal of record especially the complaint petition, the Court finds that

the place of occurrence is not mentioned in any of the pragraphs of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38977 of 2011 dt.12-09-2017

3 /3

complaint rather one paragraph discloses that on 04.09.2010, she was

assaulted by all accused persons at Vadodra but wrongly spelt as Barauda.

Even the addresses of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint is of

Gujarat and there is no allegation that any demand or torture was

committed at the parental home of the complainant situated at Nawada.

Ordinarily place of enquiry and trial is held by a court within whose local

jurisdiction the offence was committed. Sections 177, 178 and 179 Cr.P.C.

deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts relating to enquiries and

trials. In the present case, as no part of alleged offence is taken to have

occurred within Nawada jurisdiction, so the court of S.D.J.M., Nawada has

got no jurisdiction to make enquiry and trial in the present matter. Hence,

the entire criminal proceeding inclusive of the cognizance order dated

08.08.2011, passed in Complaint Case No.1134 of 2010, Trial No.2352 of

2010, by learned S.D.J.M., Nawada is quashed. However, the complainant

may file the complaint with the court having proper territorial jurisdiction

in the matter.

6. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

Uploading Date 15.09.2017
Transmission 15.09.2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *