RAM RATAN GOEL Vs. ANKITA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 25.4.2007, 27.8.2007 and 17.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the petitions respectively. It has further been prayed that Complaint Case No. 909 of 2007 registered under Section 403/406/504/506/507/34, I.P.C. read with Section 6, Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, contained in Anenxure-6 to the petitions respectively, be also quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the grandparents, petitioners No. 3 and 4 are father and mother, petitioner No. 5 is uncle of husband of opposite party No. 1, petitioner No. 6 is husband of opposite party No. 1 and petitioner No. 7 is cousin sister of husband of opposite party No. 1. Petitioner No. 6 and opposite party No. 1 were married on 19.2.2006 at Ahmedabad according to the Hindu Rites and Religion. According to the opposite party No. 1, a huge amount of Rs. 16 lakhs was spent on the marriage and various articles annexed as Annexure-A to the complaint were also given. THE petitioners after marriage started harassing the opposite party No. 1 for demand of dowry and demanded an Octiva Car and Rs. 50,000 cash from her and forced her to get it from her parents. THE complainant refused to meet the demand on the ground that her parents were not in a position to fulfil the demand. THE maid-servant was also relieved with a view to harass the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 was doing M.B.A. course at the time of her marriage from Lucknow University, but in spite of that she was made to do all household work. She tried to satisfy her in-laws and husband, but she was always abused and mentally tortured. Opposite party No. 1 was not permitted to use her goods for personal use and they were used by the accused persons. When the dowry demand was not fulfilled by the parents of opposite party No. 1, then petitioner No. 6 got the reservation ticket of complainant to Delhi from his credit card and forcibly boarded her in the train on 25.11.2006 and thereafter father of the complainant went from Lucknow to Delhi to bring her back to her parental house. THE accused did not return the stridhan to opposite party No. 1 and send her to Lucknow with only Rs. 500. THE keys of locker was also taken away from her. THE goods and articles mentioned as Annexure-A to the complaint were the personal property of opposite party No. 1 and she is legally authorised to possess them. THE complainant after coming to her parental house requested petitioners No. 1 to 7 on 7.1.2007 on phone to return her stridhan, but they refused the same and threatened the complainant of dire consequences. It was also stated that they will sell all the articles if she again demands stridhan. Opposite party No. 1 again requested for return of stridhan on 4.2.2007, but she was again threatened on phone and told that they will get her killed from hired criminal. On the aforesaid allegations the complaint has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow and, therefore, the power to entertain the complaint does not vest with the Magistrate at Lucknow. He has also submitted that the marriage has taken place at Ahmedabad and the articles have been given at Ahmedabad and merely residence of opposite party No. 1 at Lucknow will not create any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It has further been submitted that the Gujarat High Court is already seized of the matter in regard to jurisdiction and no judgment has been rendered in this regard up till now ; hence no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow and as such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following cases : Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1997 SC 2465 ; Y. Abraham and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 SCC 100 : 2005 (1) ACR 577 (SC) and Manish Ratan and others v. State of M. P. and others, (2007) 1 SCC 262 : 2007 (2) ACR 1451 (SC).