1 CR.APL NO.3432/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40. APPLN/3432/2010 YOGESH NARAYAN YEOLE AND [Criminal] ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. V.D.Hon, Adv., for R.2. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:9-3-2011 1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The petitioner, husband of respondent no.2, questions legality of Criminal Case No.435/2009, pursuant to Crime No.4/2009, for the offense punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and the chargesheet filed vide M. 155/2009, submitted at the instance of Kotwali Police Station on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to the Court at Ahmednagar. 2. The marital status between the petitioner and respondent no.2 is not in question. Reading the complaint at page nos. 17, 18, 19 onwards, material 2 CR.APL NO.3432/2010 allegations inform that the atrocious acts faced by respondent no.2 have taken place at her matrimonial abode at Shrirampur. It is not pointed anywhere that any of the act between the spouse or in-laws has taken place in the vicinity at Ahmednagar. Even if respondent no.2 is presently residing at Ahmednagar with her father, that does not mean by that itself, the Court at Ahmednagar would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Ground Nos. 3 and 6 in the present proceedings takes care of the objection raised. The petitioner in the petition, though speaks of quashing, it is principally based on lack of jurisdiction to the Court at Ahmednagar. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the judgments in the matter of Y.Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another ( AIR 2004 SC 4246) and in the matter of Bhura Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another ( 2008 Cri.L.J. 3494). The law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court makes out the 3 CR.APL NO.3432/2010 position more clear that the jurisdiction of the Court would be where the cause of action has taken place and in the present case, since no cause of action can be said to have arisen in the city of Ahmednagar, the proceedings should have been initiated and filed before the Court at Ahmednagar. In the set of above facts, the proceedings referred above be de- linked and removed from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, and be transmitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Shrirampur. Both the parties to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, on 5th April, 2011. Petition allowed in above terms. Rule made absolute accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/3432-10crapl