IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appilication no. 959 of 2009 Haridwari Lal Sharma and others …………………Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………….Respondents Mr.S.K.Mandal , learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. G.S.Sandhu, learned A.G.A. for the Respondent no.1. Dated: December 15th , 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Heard Sri S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.S.Sandhu learned G.A. for the respondent no.1. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners are assailing chargesheet and cognizance order dated 29.9.2009 passed by A.C.J.M., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Mr. Mandal stated that since marriage was solemnized at Badaun and part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Badaun ,hence Kashipur court has no jurisdiction over the matter. His further argument is that Section 498A I.P.C. provides that cruelty should be either by the husband or by the relative of the husband. According to Mr. Mandal word “or” is used in Section 498 A, hence relatives cannot be made co-accused alongwith the husband.He says either husband or his relatives can be prosecuted,however husband and his relatives cannot be prosecuted together. Mr. Mandal further stated that since mother-in-law is 70 years old and after the investigation four persons were not charge- sheeted, hence charge-sheet and cognizance order must be quashed. I have considered arguments advanced by Mr. Mandal. This is an admitted fact that marriage was solemnized at Badaun, however F.I.R. reads that cruelty for the demand of certain articles were started at Badaun and thereafter complainant’s wife came to the house of her brother at Kashipur. F.I.R. further says that on 24.3.2009 accused came to Kashipur and again raised demand and husband/petitioner no.1 started beating the complainant at Kashipur. From these contents part of cause of action certainly arose within the jurisdiction of the Kashipur,hence I am not in position to accept arguments of Mr. Mandal on this point.I find Kashipur Court has jurisdiction. So for as second argument of Mr. Mandal is concerned, Section 498A reads as under; 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section,”cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] In Section 498A word “or” denotes that in the absence of husband, relatives if found guilty can be punished under Section 498A.To my mind word “or” does not say that if husband is found guilty other relatives cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A even if they are guilty alongwith husband. In the circumstances where husband and his relatives both are guilty under Section 498A then word “or” shall be read as “and”. Hence I find no force in the argument of Mr. Mandal. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the stage of quashing of the charge-sheet and assailing the cognizance order is limited. At this stage, the court is supposed to see as to whether material collected by the Investigating Officer justifies cognizance or not. I have perused the record. Annexure-14 to the petition is a report of Woman Counseling Cell. Specific statement was made by the wife /complainant before the Woman Counseling Cell that she has danger to life from her husband. Not only this report of Counseling Cell says that husband has left the counseling place even during the counseling. From the perusal of entire record, I am of the view that cognizance order does not require any interference, since prima facie offences are seems to have been made out. Petition is devoid of merit. No interference is called for at this stage. Petition is dismissed. However, keeping in consideration the age of petitioner no.2 Smt. Dayawati, who is old aged lady, I hope and trust that learned Magistrate shall dispose of her bail application without undue delay. (Alok Singh, J.) 15.12.2009 Nishant