High Court of Patna

Mukesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

MANU/BH/0207/2019

18.02.2019

Criminal

Mere fact of taking of cognizance in no way can be said to be "commencement of proceeding"

The Petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing the order passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, passed in compliant case, where under the said learned court has taken cognizance against the Petitioner for the offences under Section 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, upon the complaint of the complainant. The allegation in the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the Petitioner is of killing the daughter of the opposite party No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner, in the State of Maharashtra.

The opposite party No. 2 had gone to Maharashtra to a Hospital where his daughter was initially admitted and later shifted to another Hospital in Pune, where she died later on and, thus, it cannot be said that, the opposite party No. 2 was not aware of there being a criminal case instituted there.

This not having been done by him in the complaint, clearly would amount to major suppression of fact as it would have changed the picture, since the Court below would have had to act in accordance with Section 210 of the CrPC, for the reason that once being aware that already there is a police enquiry, the Court has to ask for a report with regard to the same. Moreover, present Court finds that even in the case in Maharashtra, from perusal of chargesheet of the case, it is clear that the same has been submitted under Sections 302, 307, 498A and 201 of the IPC and, thus, the allegation under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the IPC in the compliant are more than adequately covered in the cognizance taken against the Petitioner in the State of Maharashtra.

The term "enquiry" would include a police enquiry/investigation. Thus, the reference to the "proceedings were first commenced" cannot be restricted only with regard to the actual taking of cognizance. The mere fact of taking of cognizance in no way can be said to be the "commencement of the proceeding", as any criminal proceeding is deemed to have commenced the moment information is given to the local police with regard to commission of a cognizable offence, which leads to lodging of the F.I.R., followed by enquiry/investigation by the police.

Thus, the Court finds that, Section 186(b) of the CrPC is of no help to the opposite party No. 2, also for the reason that, it is applicable only if there is "doubt". When, as per Section 177 of the CrPC, there is no doubt with regard to local jurisdiction of the Court where the enquiry or trial is to be held, which in the present case is Maharashtra, the Court in the State of Bihar would not have jurisdiction. The entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case including the order, by which cognizance has been taken, as far as it relates to the Petitioner, stands quashed. Application allowed.

Tags : Cognizance Proceedings Quashing of

Share :