D.K. Sinha, J.@mdashPetitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of
the entire criminal proceedings including the order impugned dated 13.12.2000 by which Shri S.K. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found
prima facie offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.
2. Prosecution story in short was that the complainant-Nikhat Parween opposite party No. 2 herein was married to the Petitioner No. 1 Shakil
Ahmad and two children were born to them from their wedlock. At the time of nikah, Dainmehr was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- with dinars but the same
could never be paid to her. Besides, jewelleries made of gold and silver, various costly articles and gifts were presented to the complainant on the
eve of her marriage and she had carried all those items with her to matrimonial home at Rajganjpur. It was alleged that the Petitioner-husband
demanded cash of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant to be brought from her parental home on the pretext that he had to start his business and in
that process, all his relatives joined him and subjected her to torture in various ways. However, a sum of Rs. 15.000/- was given to her husband in
the expectation of better future of the complainant, but her miseries did not end here. She was driven out by the accused persons from her
matrimonial home and since then she was living and leading a hapless life at Ranchi along with her minor children.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that during the period of litigation between the parties compromise was
effected, accordingly, a joint compromise petition was filed on 6.4.2002 which contained one of the terms that the husband-Petitioner No. 1 would
provide Rs. 1,200/- as her monthly maintenance and husband-Petitioner No. 1 is continuing by paying the amount to the complainant and pursuant
to such terms contained in the agreement the parties expressed to withdraw their cases, which they had filed against each other, including the
present case.
4. The complaint petition was filed in the year 2000 and after inquiry having been found prima facie case for the offence u/s 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, notices were directed to be issued to the Petitioners by the impugned order dated 13.12.2000.
5. Raising the point of jurisdiction, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at the outset submitted that no part of the occurrence took
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the complainant in her complaint petition admitted that torture was
extended to her at her matrimonial home situated at Rajganjpur, PS Rajganjpur, district-Sundergarh within the State of Orissa where she lived with
her husband and two children were born from their wedlock. Demand of money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- was made by the husband at
Rajganjpur and the allegation of torture in connection with alleged demand also took place at Rajganjpur.
6. Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Bhura Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , observed,
The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the
city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at
Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint,
the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal
with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The
complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with
law.
7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Jai Prakash, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, has not disputed the legal position and proposition
made by the Apex Court in Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra).
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and admitted legal position, this petition is allowed and the order impugned dated
13.12.2000, by which prima facie allegation u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was found against the accused Petitioners by the learned judicial
Magistrate. Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 85/2000, is set aside since barred by territorial Jurisdiction.
9. It is made clear this order will not stand in any may in filing a fresh complaint by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 before a Court of
competent jurisdiction.