BALCHAND AND POONAM CHAND CHHAPARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 1202 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) MR. S. Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the entire allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record clearly shows that the petitioners said to have committed the offences only at Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh State and no cause of action arises within the State of Tamil Nadu and as such the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, ought not to have taken cognizance of the case and the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: (1)Ramesh V. State of T. N. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 507; and (2)Manish Ratan v. State of M. P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262;

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the defacto complainant, who has impleaded as second respondent, contended that a complaint was preferred before the Madhya Pradesh State police and on the basis of the compromise, action was dropped. It is further submitted that thereafter the second respondent/defacto complainant came back to her parental house and again the petitioners/accused said to have caused cruelty to the defacto complainant by contacting over the phone. It is submitted even assuming that the offence was alleged to have taken place at Madhya Pradesh the proceedings are not liable to be quashed and on the other hand, the case may be transferred to the competent Court at Madhya Pradesh. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M. P. V. Suresh Kaushal reported in (2003) 11 SCC 126 in support of his contention.