1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3821 OF 2009 1. Ajaykumar S/o.Sumermal Chordia, Age-44 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Jaisingpur, Tq.Shirol, Dist. Kolapur, 2. Sumermal S/o.Laxmichand Chordia, Age-75 years, Occu-Business, R/o.as above. 3. Harshkumar H.Manoth, Age-55 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Dilsukh Nagar, Near Jain Mandir, Hyderabad (A.P.) 4. Kawarlal Champalal Nahar, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Bhagwan Mahavir Road, Marwadi Galli, Shenur, Dist.Raichur (Karnataka State) 5. Sau.Surekha Kawarlal Nahar, Age-42 years, Occu-Household, R/o.As above APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Sau.Kanchan Ajaykumar Chordia, Age-36 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Jaysingpur, Tq.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur, At present, R/o.Kingcorner, Station Road, Parbhani. RESPONDENTS 2 Mr.A.S.Barlota, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent no.1 Mr.Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) RESERVED ON : 22/01/2010 PRONOUNCED ON : 29/01/2010 J U D G M E N T : 1. By the present application u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., the applicants have approached this court for issuance of directions that the FIR of Crime No.149/2009, registered in Nanalpeth Police Station of Dist. Parbhani and the further proceedings lodged on the basis of said FIR at the instance of respondent no.2 be quashed and set aside and to release the first applicant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the said crime. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent. 4. Such of the facts which are necessary to consider the rival submissions of the applicants and respondents across the bar, can be summarized as follows : a) It is not under dispute that the marriage of 2nd respondent took place with the first applicant on 18/02/1991. The couple have two children by name Hitesh and Ruchika. Since the marriage, the 3 couple is residing at Jaysingpur, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. b) It is alleged that somehwhere in the year 2005, the first applicant has filed a divorce petition bearing HMP No.25/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Jaysingpur, which came to be withdrawn on assurance given by the 2nd respondent and her family members that the 2nd respondent will behave properly. c) It further appears that the alleged incident of demand of dowry, not to provide food to the 2nd respondent, to tease her that she is mentally disordered and without intimating to her parents and her brothers, she was to be admitted in the Government Ladies Hostel, at Kolhapur, known as Government Tejaswini Ladies Hostel, which incident took place somewhere on 23/08/2009 at Jaysingpur, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur, from where the 2nd respondent gave contact number of her father and brother to the Supdt. Of the Ladies Hostel as the first applicant husband refused to take her back. Her parents came at Kolhapur and took her back to Parbhani where she lodged this complaint about the alleged incident with the Inspector of Police, Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani. On the basis of said complaint, CR No.149/2009 came to be registered against the applicants. 5. Hence, the present application filed by the applicants for the grounds stated in para no.7(i) to (xiii) to the application. 6. In this background, heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP for State, and learned counsel appearing for original complainant. Also perused 4 the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. 7. Even though the application is filed for the grounds stated in para no.7(i) to (xiii), during the course of submissions, much stress was given mainly on two grounds, i.e. that after going through the complaint, as it is, entire cause alleged and the cause of action to that cause took place at Jaysingpur, hence Nanalpeth Police Station have no jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the offence registered vide CR No.149/2009 and secondly there are vague allegations against applicant no.3 to 5 who are admittedly not residing at Jaysingpur, but the applicant no.3 is the r/o.Hyderabad and applicant no.4 and 5 are R/o. Karnataka. Hence the application to be allowed. In support of first submissions, reliance is placed upon the rulling in the matter of Ramesh and others versus State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2005, SC 1989, and in support of second submissions, reliance is placed upon the rulling reported in the matter of Maya Dhas versus State. 8. As against this, it is urged by the learned APP for State that considering the material collected till investigation carried out, shows that the offence is made out against the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the application. 9. It is urged on behalf of the original complainant that considering the provisions u/s. 156(1) r/w. Section 179 of The Cr.P.C., the ensuing cause took place in the jurisdiction of Nanalpeth 5 Police Station. Hence the police from Nanalpeth can investigate the crime and hence the application to be rejected. In support of these submissions, replance is placed on the ratio laid down in the matter of State of M.P. Versus Suresh, reported in 2002 Cr.L.J. 217 and in the matter of Rasiklal Thakkar versus State, reported in (2010) 1 S.C.C. 1. 10. Read the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent in the light of these submissions which discloses that the entire alleged incident took place in the jurisdiction of Jaysingpur Police Station of Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur, on 23/08/2009 or so which is supported by the medical certificate issued about the examination of 2nd respondent on 23/08/2009 in between 3.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. when examined by the Medical Officer (Class II) of Primary Health Centre, Jaysingpur, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. These allegations also supported by the certificate issued by the Supdt. of Government Tejaswini Ladies Hostel, before whom application was given by the applicant no.1 stating that he refused to take back the 2nd respondent for the reasons mentioned therein. These documents support the allegations made by the 2nd respondent in her complaint can not be discarded at this stage against applicant no.1 and 2. 11. It is observed in the case of Maya Gajanan Dhas versus State, reported in 2009 MCR, 698, that mere conversation on cell phone is not sufficient to hold that there are illicit relationship between the two persons, but these observations are not directly applicable in the 6 present application. At the same time, the allegations against applicant no.3, who is resident of Hyderabad require to be considered that on cell phone, he is instigating 1st and 2nd applicant for demand of dowry from 2nd respondent. Applicant no.3 to applicant no.5 are not residing or not on visiting terms to Jaysingpur during the relevant period, which can be reflected from the allegations made in the complaint and this fact require consideration. In the light of these facts, there are no sufficient material to proceed against applicant no.3 to 5. 12. For consideration of the remaining submissions, it is necessary to consider the scope of section 156 of Cr.P.C. Section 177 to 179 of Chapter (xiii) of The Cr.P.C. which read as follows : Section 156 of Cr.P.C. : Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case : (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. Section 177 : Ordinary place of inquiry and trial : Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 7 Section 178 : Place of inquiry or trial : (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179 : Office triable where act is done or consequence ensues : When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 13. It is observed in the matter of Ramesh and others versus State of Tamilnadu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1989, in the matter of Sujata Mukherji versus Prashantkumar Mukherji, reported in 1997 AIR, SC, page 2465, in the matter of Isa Vyankatesh versus State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 4092 and in the latest rulling in the matter of Rasiklal Thakkar versus State of Gujrath, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 1 that if the cause of action to the allegations in the complaint took place in the territorial jurisdiction of more than one Court, then the complaint can be lodged in any of the Police Station, having the jurisdiction or in any of the court having local jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as contemplated u/s. 156(1) of The Cr.P.C., u/s. 177, and u/s. 178(b) and (c) of The Cr.P.C. So far as this proposition laid down, there shall 8 not be any dispute and there is no any dispute amongst the parties to this application. But, the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent with the Nanalpeth Police Station on the basis of which CR No. 149/2009 came to be registered. The entire cause of action of the cause as projected in the said complaint arose or taken place at Jaysingpur, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur and not at Parbhani in the jurisdiction of Nanalpeth Police Station. This fact can not be easily brushed out. It is observed in the matter of Satwinder Kaur versus State (Govt. of NCT Delhi and another) reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 4566 = 1999(1) Crimes 271 (Delhi) = (1999) 8 SCC page 728 = 1999 SCC (CRI) 1503, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that if the investigation officer, investigating the cognizable offence, the decision provide an insight into the views held by the Apex Court on the accepted position that the Investigation Officer was entitled to transfer the investigation to a police station having jurisdiction to conduct the same. 14. The submissions of counsel for respondent no.2 that considering the provisions u/s. 179 of The Cr.P.C., as the ensuing cause to the complaint arose in the jurisdiction of Nanalpeth Police Station, can not be accepted. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the rulling reported in 2002 Cr.L.J. 217 in the matter of State of M.P. Versus Suresh Kaushal and others, wherein the facts of the case are that “after the victim Smt.Ranjana Kaushal came back to her parents house after she was harassed by the 9 respondents, her miscarriage took place in her parents house, which was the ensuing cause” In the case in my hand, no such ensuing cause took place, hence the ratio as given in the said rulling is not applicable to the present case. 15. In the underlined portion of the above paragraph, the fact is clear that if the cause mentioned in the complaint or cause of action to the complaint do not take place in the local jurisdiction of Nanal peth Police Station, but took place in the local jurisdiction of Jaysingpur Police Station, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur, then it is proper on the part of Investigation Officer/Incharge of Nanalpeth Police Station to transfer the FIR lodged by the 2nd respondent for investigation to Jaysingpur Police Station. 16. In view of the discussion of the facts in all the paragraphs supra, the allegations against applicant no.3 to 5 are vague. The complaint/FIR lodged against them is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly FIR against applicant no.3 to 5 is quashed and set aside. But the prayer to that effect against applicant no.1 and 2 is rejected. 17. The Police Station Incharge of Nanalpeth is hereby directed to transfer the further investigation in CR No.149/2009 to Jaysingpur Police Station, Tal.Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur to carry out further investigation in accordance with Law. 10 18. The interim protection granted to the first applicant by this court vide order dated 12/11/2009 to continue till the completion of investigation or for the further period of 6 weeks which is earlier. The first applicant may apply for regular bail, if so advised, before the competent court of law. 19. Criminal application is partly allowed. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.3821-09