G SATHIYAKALA Vs. SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defacto complaint in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 498a ipc and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No 162 of 2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent police.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to her husband on 6. 4. 2003 and she was living in her matrimonial home at Chennai. At that time, illtreatment and demand of dowry was made at Chennai. Subsequently, on 20. 11. 2005, the petitioner accompanied by her husband, came to her parental home wherein, the father of the petitioner offered to give only rs. 10,000, but since the entire amount of rs. 75,000 was not paid, the husband left her at parental home. Thereafter a complaint was given before the second respondent police within whose jurisdiction, the parental home of the petitioner is situate. After registration of the case in Crime No. 162 of 2006, the investigation of the same has been transferred to the 3rd respondent at Chennai. Aggrieved against that the present petition for direction has been filed before this Hon'ble Court seeking for transfer of the investigation from the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent police.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially demand of dowry and ill-treatment took place at Chennai at matrimonial home by her husband and his family members, subsequently on 20. 11. 2005, it is only the husband brought her to parental home and there again the demand and ill-treatment continued and as the demand was not met, the petitioner was left at the parental home. In such circumstances, as part of the cause of action and offence committed within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, it is contended that the second respondent has got jurisdiction to register and investigate. Erroneously, the investigation of the case has been transferred to the 3rd respondent police.