PREETI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the applications arise out of the same complaint case and hence, it were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise these applications are that the complainant -opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint stating therein that she married one Kamal Kumar Poddar, who is the son of petitioners no.1 and 2 of Cr.M.P No.413 of 2009 on 10.12.2006. When she came to her in -law's place, accused persons (petitioners of both the cases) started subjecting her to torture in order to get the demand of dowry fulfilled. In course of time, they also put forth demand of a luxury car and when her father refused to oblige them, she was put to harassment in many ways and even went on saying that if the demand is not fulfilled, they will get the marriage dissolved and the other day, she was also subjected to assault and that on the occasion of Holi festival, she came to her parents' house to offer worship to goddess ˜Gangaur'.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from the allegations made in the complaint, it would appear that all the acts constituting offence under section 498A, according to complainant, occurred at Mumbai where complainant was living in her matrimonial home and no part of alleged act was committed at Ranchi within the local jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence and as such, order taking cognizance, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Manish Ratan and others V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2006 8 Supreme 372, Ramesh and others V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 1989 and Y. Abraham Ajith and others V/s.. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 8 SCC 100 is also bad.