IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9073 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S. Case No.255 Year 2005 Thana BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District BUXAR

1. Pramod Kumar S/o Sri Ramashankar Ram

2. Ratan Kumar S/o Sri Ramashankar Ram

3. Saroj Kumar S/o Sri Ramashankar Ram

4. Ramashankar Ram S/o Late Jhuri

5. Puna Devi W/o Ramashankar Ram All R/o Village Halimabad, P.S.
Mohamadabad, District Mau (U.P.)
…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ranjan Lata D/o Sri Bahadur Ram, W/o Pramod Kumar R/o Chhotaki Sarimpur
Ward No.-10 Buxar (Town), District Buxar
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar-I, APP
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ramakant Yadav, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 25-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are the husband and other in-laws of Ranjan

Lata, opposite party no.2, and they have challenged the order dated

21.04.2006, passed by S.D.J.M., Buxar in Complaint Case No.255(c)

of 2005 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the

offence under Section 498A IPC.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of the order of

cognizance and subsequent criminal proceedings. Allegation in brief,

as narrated in the complaint, is that opposite party no.2 was married in

the year 2003 with Pramod Kumar, petitioner no.1 but after marriage
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9073 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

2 /5

she came to her matrimonial home, her husband and other in-laws

started making further demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, she protested, so on

15.07.2003 her husband and other in-laws quarreled and assaulted her.

Thereafter she went back to her parents’ home where the husband

threatened telephonically to divorce her. Again she came back to

matrimonial home but she was invariably subjected to harassment and

cruelty and after 21.03.2005 she returned back to her parents’ home.

The court below has taken cognizance by impugned order after

conducting enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the

same offence, two criminal prosecutions have been launched by

opposite party no.2, first, the present complaint being Complaint Case

No.255(c) of 2005 dated 20.04.2005 filed in the court of learned CJM,

Buxar where she resides with her parents, subsequently she filed

Mohamadabad P.S. CaseNo.100 of 2005 dated 04.09.2005 relating to

the same allegation of torture and harassment relating to realization of

demand of further dowry and in the police case, the court has taken

cognizance by order dated 17.12.2005 and the case is pending there. It

is further submitted that the entire allegation, as narrated in the

complaint petition, said to have taken place at matrimonial home of

the complainant situated under Mohamadabad Police Station in the

district of Mau, Uttar Pradesh; so the jurisdiction for trial of the case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9073 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

3 /5

lies at Mau and not at Buxar moreover the accused persons cannot be

put on trial twice for the same offence at two places.

5. Contrary to the said submission, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that in the complaint

petition allegation is that for the first time the complainant returned

back to her parents’ home due to torture and harassment meted out to

her, the husband telephonically threatened her of divorce so the

territorial jurisdiction also lies there and in support of his contention,

he places reliance in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of

Bihar, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301 further submits that if the

jurisdiction does not lie at Buxar in such situation the complaint is

required to be filed before the court having proper jurisdiction in the

matter. He also submits that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court

should not stifle the criminal proceeding.

6. Having considered the rival submissions of both sides

and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the complainant

filed this complaint case relatingto the occurrence dated 07.06.2003 to

20.03.2005 in the court of CJM, Buxar where she presently lives with

her parents but subsequently she filed Mohamadabad P.S. Case

No.100 of 2005 on 04.09.2005 after lapse of four months of the

lodging of the complaint case. In view of the facts stated in the

complaint she left her matrimonial home on 21.03.2005. An admitted
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9073 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

4 /5

position is that the accused persons’ resident is situated under

Mohamadabad Police Station in the district of Mau, Uttar Pradesh.

The entire allegation, as made in the complaint, relating in particular

to torture and harassment to the complainant by the accused persons

for realizing further dowry was committed at her matrimonial home at

Mau. In the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, reported in

(2001) 6 SCC 181. The Supreme Court has held that any further

complaint by the same complainant or other against the same accused

subsequent of the registration of the case relating to the same

occurrence is prohibited under the Code. Further this contention is

reiterated in the case of Shiv Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar Anr.,

reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 wherein it is held that law does not

permit for filing of a second complaint on the same facts provided that

the earlier complaint has been rescinded on the basis of insufficient

material. In the present case relating to the same occurrence of

torturing the complainant for realizing further demand of dowry, two

cases have been filed under Section 498A IPC, one by way of filing a

complaint case in the court of CJM, Buxar, subsequently the police

case in Mohamadabad Police Station in the district of Mau, Uttar

Pradesh and in that police case also the court is ceased with the matter

after taking cognizance. The accused cannot be prosecuted at two

places for the same offence moreover, there is absence of territorial
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9073 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

5 /5

jurisdiction for conducting any enquiry and trial in the matter by the

court of CJM, Buxar. A criminal proceeding after taking cognizance

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by a court of competent

jurisdiction at Mau in Uttar Pradesh arising out of Mohamadabad P.S.

Case No.100 of 2005 dated 04.09.2005 is going on so the continuation

of the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.255(c) of 2005

would be abuse of the process of the court. In this view of the matter,

the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.255(c) of 2005

inclusive of the order of cognizance dated 21.04.2006, passed by

learned S.D.J.M., Buxar is set aside.

7. This application is allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2017
Transmission 01.09.2017
Date