SANDEEP SAHU Vs. VIJAY SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments heard.

(2.) Placing implicit reliance on the view taken in Shushil Chaudhary v. Smt. Hemlata Chaudhary,2002 5 MPHT 12, wherein the decision rendered in Vijay Kumar v. Sunita, 2000 CrLJ 4116 was followed, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the Court at Bhopal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint merely on the ground that the respondent, by way of a notice, had asked the petitioners to return the dowry money and articles at his residence there.

(3.) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the decision of another single Bench of this Court in Mohammad Noor v. Nikhat Pharjana, 2006 1 MPLJ 486, has submitted that the Court at Bhopal also has the jurisdiction to try the offence. But, a careful reading of the decision shows that the precedents in the cases of Sushil Choudhary and Vijay Kumar were not referred to and the ratio laid down in an earlier case reported as Gopal Rao v. Baldeo,1960 MPLJ 180, that was relied on, related to the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 181 in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, under the New Code, the sub-section (2) [supra] has not only been renumbered as sub-section (4) but also redrafted and an additional alternative venue, where the property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person, has been added.