1 Cri. W.P.1009.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1009 OF 2009 Anupamkumar Shrikimatilal Dhuss and others ... Petitioners V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr Swapnil S.Patil,Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.H.Borade,A.P.P.for respondent No.1-State Mr.V.Y.Patil,Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8TH APRIL, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] This Criminal Writ Petition is filed challenging the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 271 of 2006, dated 29th July 2009, as well as for quashing the Crime No. I-82 of 2004, registered with Savda Police Station on 25th December,2004 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A,323,504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent filing of the charge sheet pursuant to the said offence. 3] The facts leading to the present litigation are 2 Cri. W.P.1009.09 enumerated in the complaint, which was received by Savda Police Station on 25th December, 2004, are as under- . The respondent no.2 was original complainant, who stated in her complaint that, after her marriage, which took place in the year 2000, with one Anuj Dhussa, the brother of the petitioner no.1.She started residing with her husband and the petitioners at Bareli(U.P). Her parents were permanent resident of Delhi. She alleged that, the petitioners being her in-laws treated her with cruelty. They demanded the valuable articles from her, accusing her that she brought less dowry. They abused and ill treated her. Ultimately, she on 26th February, 2004 came back to her father’s house at Delhi. She lodged her complaint with Delhi Police on 19th August, 2004. Thereafter, her in-laws and husband came to Delhi and through some mediators a compromise arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to which, the complaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No.2 came to reside at Savda, a place in Jalgaon District, where her elder brother and family members reside. The respondent no.2 now alleges that despite withdrawal of her complaint, the petitioners did not come and make her enquiry nor did they come to take her back at Bareli. She further alleged in the complaint that she would not go to Bareli, because she was apprehending ill treatment, so she lodged the aforesaid complaint at Savda Police Station. The Police registered the offence and, as said above, the charge-sheet is also filed. 4] The petitioners moved an application under Section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissal of the 3 Cri. W.P.1009.09 complaint for want of jurisdiction to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver. The learned Magistrate accepted the petitioner’s contentions. He placed reliance on Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that since there was no allegation about demand of dowry or commission of any act within the his jurisdiction, which could attract the provisions of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the Court would not have jurisdiction to try and decide the criminal case. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. further observed that the respondent No.2 complainant was at liberty to get her complaint back and file it before the appropriate Court. 5] The respondent No. 2 challenged this order before the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by filing a revision application. The learned Sessions Judge also accepted the petitioner’s contention that the Court would not have jurisdiction, since the acts allegedly constituting the offence were not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court and so the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver would not have jurisdiction to try the case. However, the learned Judge directed the police of Savda Police Station to take back the charge-sheet and file it before appropriate Court. This part of the judgment is being challenged in this writ petition. As said above, the petitioners also sought restoration of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class discharging them in the case. 6] Mr. Swapnil Patil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith and others Vs. 4 Cri. W.P.1009.09 Inspector of Police Chennai and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286. The facts of this case were more or less similar to the present case. The Supreme Court held that 'in such situation the proceeding is liable to be quashed.’ However, the Supreme Court directed return of complaint to the complainant giving her an opportunity to lodge it at appropriate Court. 7] Mr. Vijay Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijay Ratan Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 1988 Cri.L.J.1581. The ratio of the judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The complainant in that case was married woman, who was illtreated at her husband's house, which was situated outside the local limits of Ghaziabad(U.P.) Due to mental and physical cruelty the complainant was constrained to come back to her father's house and immediately thereafter she fell ill. Allahabad High Court held that her illness amounted to “consequence” of maltreatment and cruelty that was meted out to her outside of Ghaziabad. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court placing reliance on provisions of section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that Ghaziabad Court would have jurisdiction to entertain her complaint. In this case the complainant does not mention that she fell ill at Savda due to the illtreatment met out to her, while she was staying with the petitioners. The facts would not allow her to say so, because since 2004 she was staying 5 Cri. W.P.1009.09 away from the petitioners and her husband. She was staying at Delhi for a quite some time and has come to stay at Savda recently. So, the provisions of section 179 are not applicable to the facts of this case. 8] The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while passing the order has placed reliance on the Supreme court judgment referred to above. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not place reliance on this judgment and passed a rather novel order, which in my view, is not based on any Judgment or any provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the complaint is filed before the wrong forum, which does not have jurisdiction, the complaint is quashed and set aside, but the cause for such complaint would survive. The complaint still remains alive and it would go before the appropriate Court, where it would be considered on merits. Quashing of the proceeding even in this case would not amounting to quashing of the complaint. The complainant- respondent no.2 is certainly at liberty to lodge the complaint or similar complaint before the appropriate Court or Police Station. The Writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok