D.K. Sinha, J.
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners sought for and is permitted to carry out certain corrections in paragraph-1 of this petition.
2. The petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 31.3.2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 1343 of 2003 by Shri Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.
3. The short fact of the case as alleged in the complaint petition was that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was married to the petitioner No. 1 Laxman Prajapati in the year 1992 according to the Hindu rites and rituals and the parents of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had spent huge amount at the time of marriage but could not afford to make further cash payment of Rs. 5,000/- on account of poverty. After marriage the complainant/opposite party No. 2 remained in her matrimonial home with her husband where she delivered two female children after interval. It was alleged that the petitioners started perpetrating torture mental and physical and also neglecting her by demanding the dowry amount which was due on the eve of marriage of the complainant/opposite party No. 2. It was threatened that the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 would be remarried to another girl in case, due amount of dowry would not be paid to them. In the meantime, father of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 died and she visited her parental home with her husband to attend the Saradh ceremony of her father which is situated within territorial jurisdiction of Hazaribagh and after completion of Saradh ceremony she was refused by her husband to go to her matrimonial home unless due amount of dowry was paid to him. However, on 14.12.2002 the complainant/opposite party No. 2 went to her matrimonial home with her cousin brother and minor daughter but again her misery was started that she was allowed to sleep in a separate room and in the night itself all the accused/petitioners conspired and attempted to commit her murder by throttling and setting her on fire On weeping of the child, the neighbours assembled and saved her life.
4. Mr. R.A. Sharma, the learned Counsel assailed the cognizance order on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the court. According to the learned Counsel, the entire alleged occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Kodcerma and not Hazaribagh beyond competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Hazaribagh to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and to transfer the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of Cr.P.C. against the mandate of Section 177 of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel further argued that the alleged occurrence took place, according to the complaint petition, on 15.12.2002 at Koderma and part of the offence alleged to have taken place on that date within the jurisdiction of Hazaribagh so cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons was not maintainable and is liable to be set aside as they had not visited the parental house of the complainant/opposite party No. 2.
5. From plain reading of the complaint petition filed on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 with reference to paragraph-8 I find that part of the offence allegedly under Section 498A took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the CJM Hazaribagh and to quote:
That the father of complainant died in the month of October, 2002. The complainant and her husband came to attend the saradh ceremony after saradh the complainant was ready to go her Sasural with her husband, but accused No. 1 again demanded dues dowry in the presence of witnesses, as the complainant's father died and dues dowry has not been paid so will not take her and he went away alone.
Only thereafter I find with reference to paragraph 9 of the complaint petition that complainant/opposite party No. 2 visited her matrimonial home with her minor daughter and cousin brother on 14.12.2002 where the alleged occurrence took place. Though this allegation was disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and therefore, no cognizance for the offence under Section 307 IPC is taken. According to the learned Magistrate, no material was found during the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence under Sections 3, 4 of the dowry prohibition Act and therefore, no cognizance of the offence under Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners.
6. It is evidently clear the other petitioners except petitioner No. 1 Laxman Prajapati, who is the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, had not visited the parental home of the complainant which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Hazaribagh so as to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in view of the allegation made in paragraph-8 of the complaint petition. Therefore, I find and observe that the other petitioners Kameshwar Prajapati, Anup Prajapati, Ramdeo Prajapati, Bansi Prajapati and Reti Devi wife of Bansi Prajapati had not visited the parental home of the complainant so as to attract the allegation under Section 498A of IPC against them and therefore, cognizance of the offence in the said section against the other petitioners with reference to paragraphs herein above except the husband Laxman Prajapati is barred by jurisdiction.
7. In the result, the cognizance of the offence taken against the petitioners (Kameshwar Prajapati, Anup Prajapati, Ramdeo Prajapati, Bansi Prajapati and Reti Devi) by order dated 31.3.2003 under Section 323 is not maintainable, accordingly it is set-aside.
8. It would not be out of place to mention that though the complaint petition was filed by Tekani Devi who is the complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein but she could not appear in this Court inspite of several notice being sent to her by registered letter which returned with the endorsement of the postal peon that she had already left the place.
9. This Cr.M.P. petition is allowed in part in the manner indicated above.