SURESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, who are accused of Criminal Case No. 553/02 pending in the Court of JMFC, Itarsi, for the offences under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that no part of offence is said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Itarsi and, in fact, the offence is alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhopal.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that complainant Anita Choudhari was married to accused Suresh Raj on 26-11-2000 at Bhopal. After marriage, she resided at Bhopal. According to her, after marriage, when she lived at her husband's house, her husband and other accused persons started harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty on the ground of inadequacy of dowry. They demanded Rs. 1 lac in cash and a Maruti car. On not meeting the demand, she was subjected to harassment and she was made to leave the house and to go to her parent's house at Itarsi. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on perusal of the allegations made in the written report lodged by complainant on 29-7-2002 and the statements of Anita Choudhari, her mother Smt. Tara Choudhary and father Manoharlal Choudhari recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), it is apparent that all the acts of demand and cruelty are alleged to have been committed at Bhopal, i. e. , within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bhopal. Though it is said that she had gone to her parents' house more than once, but there is not even a whisper of allegation that any kind of cruelty was committed towards her when she was at Itarsi. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial of the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Itarsi was without jurisdiction.

(3.) LEARNED Dy. Government Advocate, Shri S. K. Kashyap appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the complainant was compelled to leave the in-laws' house and was made to go to her parents' house at Itarsi. Since she stayed at Itarsi and suffered mental agony there, the Courts at Itarsi had also jurisdiction.