ATUL KUMAR PACHAURI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC challenging the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Datia in Criminal Revision No. 111/2009 whereby the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Criminal Case No. 1176/2008 has been confirmed. The present petition is also for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1176/2008 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The criminal case has been registered against the petitioners on the report of respondent No.2 for her harassment by her husband, father -in -law, mother - in -law and his relatives who are petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made the allegation of dowry demand at her in -laws house at Delhi and in the FIR there is allegation regarding harassment for dowry at Datia, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. It has further been submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners -Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma who have been mentioned as Mamiya Sasur and Mameri Nanad. It has further been submitted that in absence of any specific allegation, the cognizance taken against the petitioners -Dr. Omprakash Gupta and Smt. Neeta alias Ganga Sharma is not sustainable and further against the remaining petitioners the only allegation is that when they used to come at Delhi they also harassed the complainant for demand of dowry.

(3.) Learned trial Court vide impugned order has held that the allegation of cruelty has been made at both the places i.e. Datia and Delhi, therefore, the Court at Datia and Delhi both have the territorial jurisdiction for trial of the case. It has also been mentioned that threat has been given to the complainant on telephone at Datia which falls within the category of mental cruelty, therefore, so far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned looking to the continuation of offence at Datia where the threat has been given on telephone to the complainant, the Court at Datia is having the territorial jurisdiction of hearing the matter.