PAWAN VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/accused preferred this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the first information report dated 20-7-2009 registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against them as Crime No. 130/09 at Police Station Badi Tahsil Bareli, District Raisen for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Applicants' counsel after taking me through papers of the charge-sheet placed on record argued that as per averments of the first information report lodged by respondent No. 2 at Police Station Badi and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses after solemnized her marriage with applicant No. 1 on 4-7-2007 at Madan Mahal Jabalpur initially she resided in her matrimonial home with the applicants at Madan Mahal Jabalpur. As alleged on account of demand of dowry she was being ill treated with cruelty by the applicants. In such premises in view of section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code, the trial of the case could be held only at Jabalpur and the Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the police station of Badi did not have any jurisdiction to take the cognizance in the impugned case or to proceed with the trial. In continuation, he said that according to latter part of such report on dated 17-12-2008, when she was at her parental home at Badi, the applicants No. 1, 5 and 6 her husband, sister-in-law and brother-in-law came there and by making demand of dowry committed cruelty with her. Therefore, in any case except these three applicants no other applicant could be prosecuted for the alleged offence, in the present trial Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the Police Station Badi. In support of such contention by placing his reliance on section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code he prayed for quashment of the FIR and the entire proceedings based on it, in alternate he prayed to quash the same till the extent of applicants No. 2 to 4.

(3.) On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments Shri Vijay Pandey, learned appearing counsel of the respondent No. 2 by referring the case laws in the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, 1997 AIR(SC) 2465, said that as per averments of the first information report, subsequent to marriage all the applicants committed alleged cruelty with the respondent No. 2 at Madan Mahal Jabalpur, and in continuation of the same applicant Nos. 1, and 6 also committed such cruelty with her on 17-12-2008 by making demand of dowry at her parental home, Badi. Accordingly, the alleged offence has been committed by the applicants in continuation at two places i.e.