MOHANI MEHROTRA Vs. SHILPI MEHROTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall govern disposal of both the petitions filed by the petitioners for getting the criminal proceedings, pending as Complaint Case No. 1923/2009, before Shri Sanjay Singh, JMFC, Jabalpur, quashed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). In that case, cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken upon a complaint filed by Shilpi Mehrotra, impleaded as respondent no. 1 in both the cases. Marriage of the complainant/respondent no. 1 was solemnized with Pankaj, who is the son of Kedarnath and Mohani and brother of Ruchi, on 9.2.2007 at Kota (Rajasthan).

(2.) The complaint was forwarded, under Section 156(3) of the Code, to police for investigation and upon the corresponding report; the complaint was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, by way of order-dated 5.2.2009, learned Magistrate proceeded to reconsider the question of jurisdiction in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Suiata Mukheriee v. Prashant Kumar Mukheriee, 1997 5 SCC 30 (that had already been distinguished on facts in a subsequent judgment rendered in Y. Abraham Anth v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2004 8 SCC 100. completely ignoring the bar of review as contained in Section 362 of the Code and directed issuance of process against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences as none of the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment was committed within its territory. According to him, the complainant had resided at her matrimonial home at Kota initially, for a period of 19 days and thereafter, for 29 days.