Patna High Court – Orders
Girja Dubey And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 30 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42110 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1250 Year-2013 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
1. Girja Dubey, W/o Late Brij Bihari Dubey
2. Shilpi Kumari
3. Bable Kumari, both are D/o Late Brij Bihari Dubey
4. Amarnath Dubey, S/o Late Brij Bihari Dubey, All are residents of House No.
124/3, N.L.C. Babu Purwa Nagar, P.S. Babu Purwa, District - Kanpur Uttar
Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Daisy Dubey W/o Amarnath Dubey resident of House No. 124/03, N.L.C.
Babu Purwa Nagar, P.S. - Babu Purwa, District - Kanpur, presently resides at
Village - Jogiyan, P.S. Brahampur, District - Buxar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 30-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 16.05.2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned
Order’) passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Trial Court’), Buxar in Complaint Case No. 1250(c) of 2013
whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘I.P.C‘) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
2/12
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.P. Act‘) against
petitioners and summons have been directed to be issued against
them.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant (O.P. No. 2) was married to petitioner no. 4,
namely, Amarnath Dubey, on 20.05.2009 according to Hindu
rites and rituals and sufficient gift were given at time of
marriage. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at
Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh), where she started residing with her
husband and other in-laws. It has been alleged that initially
everything was cordial, however, after about six months, her
husband and in-laws started misbehaving with her on account of
demand of a car and subjected her to mental and physical
cruelty. It is further alleged that despite intervention by her
parental family, the dispute could not be resolved. Lastly, it has
been alleged that on 23.10.2013, the accused persons, on the
pretext of visiting, brought the O.P. No. 2 from Kanpur to Buxar
Railway Station and after leaving her there, fled away,
whereafter she somehow reached her parental home at village
Jogiyan, Buxar. On the basis of above allegation, O.P. No. 2
filed a complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No.1250(c)
of 2013 before Learned C.J.M., Buxar, which got transferred to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
3/12
the learned Trial Court for disposal.
4. Learned Trial Court after perusing the complaint
petition, S.A of complainant and examining three enquiry
witnesses, found a prime facie case and accordingly, took
cognizance against petitioners for offence under section 498A of
I.P.C and section 4 of D.P. Act and directed issuance of
summons against them vide impugned order. Aggrieved thereby,
petitioners has preferred this present application.
5. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in- law, petitioner No.
2 and 3 are sister-in law and petitioner No. 4 is husband of O.P.
No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly
illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Learned
counsel of petitioners further submits that from the bare perusal
of the complaint petition itself, it would be evident that after
solemnization of marriage with petitioner no. 4, O.P. No. 2 went
to her matrimonial home at Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh), where she
started residing with her husband and other in-laws. The entire
allegations relating to demand of dowry, cruelty, torture and
mental harassment are alleged to have taken place only at
Kanpur during her stay at the matrimonial home. There is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
4/12
specific allegation that any demand of dowry was ever made or
any act constituting cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C. was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Buxar. Learned
counsel further submits that the only allegation concerning
Buxar is that on 23.10.2013, the accused persons, on the pretext
of visiting, brought O.P. No. 2 to Buxar Railway Station and left
her there, whereafter she somehow reached her parental home.
Except this, there is not even a whisper in the complaint petition
or in the solemn affirmation regarding commission of any
offence at Buxar. Mere leaving of the complainant at the railway
station does not constitute any offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act so as to confer
territorial jurisdiction upon the Court at Buxar.
7. Learned Counsel of petitioners further submits that
Section 177 Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed. Since the entire alleged
occurrence took place at Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh), the learned
S.D.J.M., Buxar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint or to take cognizance of the offences against the
petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
5/12
this fundamental jurisdictional issue and mechanically took
cognizance without recording any satisfaction regarding
territorial jurisdiction. The order is completely non-speaking
and reflects total non-application of judicial mind. It is thus
submitted that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue in
such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court and unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Therefore,
the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners
deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.
8. Despite sufficient opportunities given to O.P. No.
2 , no one is present on her behalf.
9. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for quashing and
submits that on the basis of the complaint petition and solemn
affirmation, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case and
rightly took cognizance. Learned APP further submits that the
Court where the wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial
home due to cruelty may also have territorial jurisdiction, as the
mental trauma continues at the parental home. Since the
complainant took shelter at Buxar, the learned Magistrate rightly
proceeded with the case.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
6/12
perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that O.P.
No. 2 was married to petitioner no. 4, namely, Amarnath Dubey,
on 20.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals and
thereafter she went to her matrimonial home at Kanpur (Uttar
Pradesh), where she started residing with her husband and other
in-laws. It is alleged that after about six months, petitioner
herein started misbehaving with her on account of demand of a
car and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. It is further
alleged that despite intervention by her parental family, the
dispute could not be resolved. Lastly, it has been alleged that on
23.10.2013, the accused persons (petitioner herein), on the
pretext of visiting, brought the complainant to Buxar Railway
Station and after leaving her there, fled away, whereafter she
somehow reached her parental home at village Jogiyan, Buxar.
Subsequently learned Trial Court took cognizance against
petitioners herein and directed issuance of summons vide
impugned order. The main question for consideration is as to
‘whether learned Trial has made impugned order in violation
territorial jurisdiction which requires intervention of this court
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code.’
11. The three-judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
7/12
Court in case Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has explained the issue of
jurisdiction with regard to matrimonial offences and has held as
under:
“8. Section 178 creates an exception to the
“ordinary rule” engrafted in Section 177 by
permitting the courts in another local area
where the offence is partly committed to take
cognizance. Also if the offence committed in
one local area continues in another local
area, the courts in the latter place would be
competent to take cognizance of the matter.
Under Section 179, if by reason of the
consequences emanating from a criminal act
an offence is occasioned in another
jurisdiction, the court in that jurisdiction
would also be competent to take cognizance.
Thus, if an offence is committed partly in one
place and partly in another; or if the offence
is a continuing offence or where the
consequences of a criminal act result in an
offence being committed at another place,
the exception to the “ordinary rule” would
be attracted and the courts within whose
jurisdiction the criminal act is committed
will cease to have exclusive jurisdiction to
try the offence.
14.”Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence
under Section 498-A IPC is defined in
Black’s Law Dictionary to mean “the
intentional and malicious infliction of mental
or physical suffering on a living creature,
esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage
(abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)”.
Cruelty can be both physical or mental
cruelty. The impact on the mental health of
the wife by overt acts on the part of the
husband or his relatives; the mental stress
and trauma of being driven away from the
matrimonial home and her helplessness to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
8/12
go back to the same home for fear of being
ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored
while understanding the meaning of the
expression “cruelty” appearing in Section
498-A of the Penal Code. The emotional
distress or psychological effect on the wife, if
not the physical injury, is bound to continue
to traumatise the wife even after she leaves
the matrimonial home and takes shelter at
the parental home. Even if the acts of
physical cruelty committed in the
matrimonial house may have ceased and
such acts do not occur at the parental home,
there can be no doubt that the mental trauma
and the psychological distress caused by the
acts of the husband including verbal
exchanges, if any, that had compelled the
wife to leave the matrimonial home and take
shelter with her parents would continue to
persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty
borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and
humiliating verbal exchanges would
continue in the parental home even though
there may not be any overt act of physical
cruelty at such place.
15. The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, as the object behind its
enactment would indicate, is to provide a
civil remedy to victims of domestic violence
as against the remedy in criminal law which
is what is provided under Section 498-A of
the Penal Code. The definition of “domestic
violence” in the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates
harm or injuries that endanger the health,
safety, life, limb or well-being, whether
mental or physical, as well as emotional
abuse. The said definition would certainly,
for reasons stated above, have a close
connection with Explanations (a) & (b) to
Section 498-A of the Penal Code which
define “cruelty”. The provisions contained
in Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
9/12
as the physical well-being of the wife. Even
the silence of the wife may have an
underlying element of an emotional distress
and mental agony. Her sufferings at the
parental home though may be directly
attributable to commission of acts of cruelty
by the husband at the matrimonial home
would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of
the acts committed at the matrimonial home.
Such consequences, by itself, would amount
to distinct offences committed at the parental
home where she has taken shelter. The
adverse effects on the mental health in the
parental home though on account of the acts
committed in the matrimonial home would,
in our considered view, amount to
commission of cruelty within the meaning of
Section 498-A at the parental home. The
consequences of the cruelty committed at the
matrimonial home results in repeated
offences being committed at the parental
home. This is the kind of offences
contemplated under Section 179 CrPC
which would squarely be applicable to the
present case as an answer to the question
raised.
(emphasis supplied )”
12. The law laid down in Rupali Devi(supra) has been
reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme in case of Ruhi v. Anees Ahmad
and Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 787 .
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria v.
State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 has
held as under:
“105. Another issue that calls for reiteration
is, whether, the ordinary place of inquiry and
trial would include the place where the
complainant wife resides after being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
10/12separated from her husband. The position of
law regarding the ordinary place of
investigation and trial as per Section
177CrPC, especially in matrimonial cases
alleging cruelty and domestic violence,
alleged by the wife, has advanced from the
view held in State of Biharv.Deokaran
Nenshi [State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi,
(1972) 2 SCC 890 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 114] ;
Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar
Mukherjee [Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant
Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 673] ; Y. Abraham Ajith v. State of
T.N. [Y. Abraham Ajith v. State of T.N.,
(2004) 8 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134] ,
Ramesh v. State of T.N. [Ramesh v. State of
T.N., (2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
735] ; Manish Ratan v. State of M.P.
[Manish Ratan v. State of M.P., (2007) 1
SCC 262 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] that if
none of the ingredients constituting the
offence can be said to have occurred within
the local jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
cannot be the ordinary place of investigation
and trial of a matrimonial offence. A three-
Judge Bench of this Court has however
clarified in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.
[Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC
384 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 558] (“Rupali
Devi”) that adverse effects on mental health
of the wife even while residing in her
parental home on account of the acts
committed in the matrimonial home would
amount to commission of cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498-A at the parental
home. It was held that the courts at the
place where the wife takes shelter after
leaving or being driven away from the
matrimonial home on account of acts of
cruelty committed by the husband or his
relatives, would, depending on the factual
situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain
a complaint alleging commission of
offences under Section 498-A IPC.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
11/12
(emphasis supplied)
14. In the present case, it appears that after marriage
O.P. No. 2 started residing at her matrimonial home at Kanpur
(Uttar Pradesh), where the allegations of demand of dowry,
cruelty and harassment by petitioners herein are said to have
taken place. O.P. No. 2 has specifically stated that on
23.10.2013, the accused persons brought her to Buxar Railway
Station and left her there, whereafter she reached her parental
home.
15. It is well settled that in offences relating to
matrimonial cruelty, the Court at the place where the wife takes
shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial
home may also have territorial jurisdiction, as the mental trauma
and consequences of cruelty continue even at the parental home.
16. Since the O.P. No. 2, after being left at Buxar,
took shelter at her parental home within the territorial
jurisdiction of Buxar, this Court finds that the learned
Magistrate cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction
while taking cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, this Court
finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order regarding
lack of territorial jurisdiction which requires interference in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
17. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
12/12
accordingly, get dismissed.
18. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court concerned forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U T
