1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 417/2008 HRIDAYA RAM & OTHERS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER : 05-11-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. G.R.Punia, for Petitioner (s) Mr. O. P.Rathi, P.P., for the State. Mr. Anuj Sahlot for Respondent No.2. Preferring instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioners request quashing of FIR No.87/07, registered against the petitioners for the offences of Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, at Police Station, Bhuvana, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that (1) in the FIR, no allegation or act amounting or conducive to offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, is alleged. (2) Marriage solemnized at Sultanpur. (3) Complainant and husband are alleged to be resided at Sultanpur. (4) Petitioner No.1 (husband of respondent No.2) never lived at Udaipur. (5) Alleged demand and not handing over of so-called “Ishtridhan” is also at Sultanpur, so no jurisdiction in State of Rajasthan. (6) It is a matter of non-consummation of marriage as described in detail in FIR. (7) FIR registered for the offence of Sections 498-A & 406, IPC – and not registered for the offence regarding use of force or threatening. Argued that simply because of reason that parents of complainant being resident at Udaipur, cannot be jurisdiction. Extensively drawing attention towards FIR, argued that even if husband came to Udaipur and asked his wife to accompany him, that cannot give rise to jurisdiction. In support of contentions, reliance placed on 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 822, Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, wherein cognizance was quashed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – complainant stated that though marriage solemnized at Sultanpur, but, in FIR, clear allegations 2 of physical atrocities at Udaipur. Drawing attention towards contents of FIR, argued that severe beating and forceful activities are alleged. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to direct allegations of action at Udaipur, it cannot be said that no jurisdiction at this place is. Argued that position can be much clear on investigation. Considered arguments and perused FIR – marriage solemnized at Sultanpur and certain other allegations at Sultanpur appear – but also there is some detailed descriptions of improper activities at Udaipur which includes use of force and threatening etc. As certain positive acts are alleged to have been committed at Udaipur, it cannot be said outrightly that no jurisdiction, whatsoever can be at Udaipur. Necessary elements constituting or ousting jurisdiction may be matter of investigation. Considering allegations in FIR, the petition, at this stage, has no force and accordingly is dismissed. Observations whatever appearing in this order are solely in context of disposal of this petition. The petitioners shall be free to raise all these objections at appropriate stage. The petition is dismissed. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd