B HARI PRASAD Vs. B USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the proceeding in ICC Case No. 15 of 2001 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 406/34 I.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that the learned S.D.J.M. has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter since the occurrence on the basis of which cognizance was taken on 15.4.2002 has admittedly taken place at the complainant's matrimonial house at Ichhapuram in the State of Andhrapradesh. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., 2004 29 OCR 241.

(2.) It appears from the impugned order dated 25.7.2002 that the accused persons had filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M. to quash the order of cognizance on the ground that the S.D.J.M. had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence which allegedly occurred at Ichhapuram in the State of Andhrapradesh.

(3.) From the records it appears that the complainant-B.Usha had married the accused-petitioner No. 1-B. Hari Prasad at Berhampur on 13.3.1996. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the dowry articles had been given to the accused-petitioners at Chatrapur and when she went to her matrimonial house, she was tortured for demand of more dowry for which reason she returned to her parents house at Chatrapur where she gave birth to a male child on 22.12.1996. After birth of that child, the petitioners did not care to visit and see their new born or attend any function like 'Namakarana' or 'Amaprasa', and on the other hand, sent a message to bring Rs. 10,000/- to liquidate certain hand loans. It is further alleged that the complainant once again went to her matrimonial house at Ichhapuram and stayed there for about one and half months. She was not allowed to remain peacefully for which she returned to her parents house in the month of April, 1998 and thereafter, the present complaint petition was filed before the learned S.D.J.M. on 24.4.2001 on the ground that although notice was issued by the complainant's counsel to return the dowry articles, the same were not returned and thereby misappropriated.