ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. The three of the F.I.R. named accused of Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 25.5.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498, 406, 379/34 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. One Shahista Usmani, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp.Party No. 2, filed Complaint Case No. 625 of 2006 inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 498, 406, 379/34 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the hands of the accused continuously from 20.6.2004. The said complaint was transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof instant complaint case came registered.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution case in brief is that the complainant/informant was married to Hasnain Azim on 28.6.2004 and Mahar was fixed at Rs. 1,11,786/-. Several ornaments of gold and silver worth Rs. 86,000/- was given to her and since the complainant had received training in computer, her brother had presented her with a computer worth Rs. 26,000/-.The first month in the matrimonial home was spent in bliss, but thereafter the mother-in-law, Dewar Hasnain Ariz, Nanad Farob started taunting and torturing her and her parents in-law told to her to bring Rs. 10 Lacs and a car, failing which she would not be permitted to remain in the matrimonial home and she would be tortured in such a manner that she would die. When she tried to convey the demand to her parents, Md. Akif and Md. Arif told her mother- in-law that none from the family of the informant should be permitted to come and that she should not be permitted to telephone her parents, whereupon the mother-in-law, Dewar and Nanad started abusing her and subjecting her to various forms of torture and reminded her of the demand. The informant is said to have remonstrated on the ground that her father and brothers had already spent sufficient funds on the marriage and they were unable to provide Rs. 10 Lacs in cash and a car. It is further alleged that she pretended illness and informed her father who came and offered to take her home but the father was abused and reminded of the demand which had already been made whereupon the father along with his relatives Parwez Alam and Md. Haroon went back home. Another attempt was made on 9.9.2005 by the father to get bidai done of the informant which, of course, was permitted after the father had been abused and ill-treated and after the accused persons had confiscated all her ornaments and clothes etc. It is also stated that by that time, the informant had become pregnant and she was pushed out of the house. At her parental home she gave birth to a male child on 29.5.2005 and although intimation was sent to her matrimonial home, none came to see the informant or the child. It is also alleged that the accused persons had misrepresented about the qualification of the husband and it was found that he was merely an Assistant Technician working on contract basis and that notwithstanding the informant was still ready to live with him. It is further alleged that since the demand had not been met, the accused were not ready to keep the informant in their house, whereupon she travelled to Bombay to stay with her sister and there she represented before a private society, from where a notice was sent to her husband calling upon him to appear before them on 24.1.2006, but he did not appear and instead he filed a petition on 3.2.2006 before the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat - Prem Jivan and the said Mukhiya noticed the informant to appear before him on 26.3.2006 along with her family members at the Nawab Memorial Hospital, Darbhanga. However, the husband of the informant sent intimation to the Mukhiya regarding his inability to appear before him and it was on the advice of the Mukhiya that the complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga.
4. The main contention of the petitioners is that the court at Darbhanga had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition filed by the informant since the entire cause of action took place in the matrimonial home of the informant at Sadpura, Milki Tola, within Kazimohammadpur Police Station in the district of Muzaffarpur and no part thereof occured within the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It has also been submitted that as per the assertion of the informant in the complaint petition she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 9.9.2005 and yet the complaint petition was not filed till 15.5.2007 and it was only to patch up the delay in filing of the complaint petition that the story of the informant visiting her sister at Bombay was propagated. It was also submitted that the husband of the informant had already filed Matrimonial Case No. 52 of 2006 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur for restitution of conjugal rights, which is (sic) served on her and she has appeared by filing Vakalatnama, yet at the time of hearing none was present on her behalf and neither has any show cause or written (sic) appear from the narration in the complaint petition which forms the basis of the F.I.R., that the entire allegations of commission of overt act as against the informant as also her father and relatives took place at the matrimonial home of the informant, which is within the jurisdiction of the courts in Muzaffarpur Judgeship and no part of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of the Judgeship of Darbhanga.
5. Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides for the place where an enquiry and trial should ordinarily take place and Sub-section (b) of Section 178 Cr.P.C. provides that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, then it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of (sic) is not the position here in the instant case and applying the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. to the factual scenario disclosed by the informant, the only conclusion that one can arrive at is that no part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts within the judgeship of Darbhanga, the court at Darbhanga had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or even take cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police after investigation.
6. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.