IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 236 of 2011 Date of decision: 08.12.2011 Hutashan Kumar S/o Dhanjay Shastri R/o Village Khilra, P.O. Meramasit, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Heema Devi W/o Hutashan Kumar, presently R/o Village Ghour, P.O. Reur, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : None for respondent No.1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G., for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This revision has been directed against order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2011 affirming order dated 23.7.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2009. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC on the allegations that the articles mentioned in the complaint were given to respondent No.1 at the time of marriage as ISTRIDHAN. She was _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 turned out of her matrimonial home by the petitioner. The articles remained in the custody of petitioner and were not returned on the demand made by respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. The Court recorded the preliminary evidence and issued process to the petitioner on 23.7.2011. The order dated 23.7.2011 was challenged by way of revision by the petitioner which has been affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge on 14.11.2011. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that report under Section 202 Cr.P.c. was called and it was stated in the report that no offence was committed by the petitioner. The trial Court has ignored the report. There was no jurisdiction with the trial Court at Mandi, only Judicial Magistrate at Sundernagar had the jurisdiction over the matter. The Additional Sessions Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, who has jurisdiction over whole of the District Mandi including the area within the jurisdiction of Sub Division, Sundernagar. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the complaint and preliminary evidence and in his considered view he came to the view that the case is made out against the petitioner for issuing process. It has not been argued that it is a case of no evidence. The Magistrate is not bound by the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the petition which is resultantly dismissed. December 8, 2011 . ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.