BEENA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 934 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under sections 498 A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, State Vs. Harish Goswami and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to principle of law laid down in Manish Raton and others Vs. State of M.P. and another (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 262 and Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100, and it is argued that Judicial Magistrate, at Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, has no jurisdiction to try the offences allegedly committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai. I have gone through the said case laws. Both these cases pertain to the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. In these cases, the Apex Court has held that in view of provision of Section 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., only the court having territorial jurisdiction of the place where the offence is committed are competent to take the cognizance of the offence and not the court of the place where the complainant is living with her parents after leaving matrimonial home. In the case of Manish Ratan's (Supra), the Apex Court has exercised its power under Section 142 of Constitution of India, and transferred the case from Datia (girl's parents house) to Jabalpur, where the offence is allegedly committed. In Y Abraham Ajith's case (Supra), the word 'cause of action' has been explained and it has been held that it is only the court at Nagercoil, where the offence is allegedly committed, which is competent to take the cognizance of the offence and not the Magistrate at Chennai, where the complaint was filed by the wife of the accused, relating to offences punishable under Section 498 A and 406 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this case, the Apex Court discharged the accused from the complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2, drew attention of this Court also the case law reported in Jagdish and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others : 1998 CRI. L.J. 554 and Prabhat Ranjan Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 1998 (2) A.Cr.R. 1588. In both these cases, it is alleged that the harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry continued even at the place where the complainant (wife) lived with her parents. While in the present case, there is no such allegations that the harassment was made at Khatima (District Udham Singh Nagar). As to that place only this much is mentioned in the First Information Report that the complainant's husband from abroad rang her and told her that he will be sending papers of divorce. That by itself is not harassment for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. For the reasons as discussed above, in view of provision of Section 177, 178 and 179 of Cr.P.C. this Court is of the view that the court at Khatima, has no jurisdiction to try the petitioners in respect of the offences, committed in Mumbai as no part of cause of action has taken place within the territory of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings in criminal case No. 934 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, State Vs. Harish Goswami, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, are here by quashed.