ROSHAN KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Vinay d/o Krishan DevPandey was married to accused Roshan on 2.6.96. After marriage, she was harassedby her husband Roshan, mother-in-law Meena Tiwari and father-in-law YogenderTiwari for not bringing dowry, demanded by them. On 9th January, her parents tookher to matrimonial home. She was turned out of her house by her in-law by stating thatshe was fat and was not beautiful. They would bring another bride who would be morebeautiful and would bring more dowry.

(2.) I have heard arguments from both sides. Ld.Defence Counsel has prayed fordischarge of all accused by stating that marriage between parties was solemnised inBihar. Cruelty and harassment was done at her matrimonial house at Gorakhpur.Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. He has relief upon thejudgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohanlal and another's. State 1999 (III)A.D. (Cr.) DHC 369. On the other hand, Ld. APP has also relief upon the judgment ofHon'ble Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and Anr.1999 ll AD (Delhi) 733 and stated that this Court has jurisdiction to try the case asoffences u/s. 498A Indian Penal Code and 406 Indian Penal Code are continuing ones and demand of return ofdowry articles has been made by the complainant in Delhi.

(3.) I have perused the case file. It is not disputed that marriage between parties wassolemnised in Bihar and complainant lived at her matrimonial home at Gorakhpurafter marriage where the alleged harassment and cruelty was statpd to have beencommitted upon her. The sole question to be decided is whether Delhi Court hasjurisdiction to try this case or not.