IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 103 of 2004 1. Dr. Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Singh. 2. Smt. Urmila W/o Dr. Bhopal Singh. 3. Sanjay Singh S/o Dr. Bhopal Singh All R/o H.No. B-2/146, Sector-F, Jankipuram, Police Station Maidiao District Lucknow …………..…Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Raghhbir Singh Gahlot, Sugar Cane Inspector, R/o Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Nadehi, Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar ……….Opposite parties. Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate present for the petitioners. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. alongwith Shri M.A. Khan Brief Holder present for the state/ respondent No.1 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioners have 2 sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.2387 of 2002 State vs. Dr. Bhopal Singh & others relating to offences punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur . 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 3 Sanjay Singh got married to Kiran D/o Raghubir Singh Gahlot (respondent no. 2/complainant) on 06.05.2001, in Lucknow. The respondent No. 3 lodged a first information report on 06.08.2002, with outpost Nadehi, Police Station Jaspur, complaining that his son-in-law (petitioner No. 3) and his parents Dr. Bhopal Singh (petitioner No. 1) Smt. Urmila (petitioner No. 2) were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. It is further alleged they demanded a ‘Maruti’ car and also insisted that a plot be purchased at Muradabad for 3 the petitioner No. 3. On non fulfilment of demand of dowry, the complainant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty. Meanwhile on 18.02.2002, a son (named Dhanu), born out of the wedlock, it is alleged by the complainant that the accused physically assaulted not only Kiran but also son Dhanu at Lucknow. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet on the basis of which the criminal case No. 2387 of 2002 was registered and the accused (present petitioners) were summoned in said case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cause of action has allegedly taken place within the territorial limits of the Lucknow Court, as such the proceedings before the Kashipur Court are liable to be quashed. Perusal of the Annexure 5 with the petition shows that the complainant lodged first information report at Nadehi (in the State of Uttarakhand) and complainant’s wife filed another first information report with Police Station Maidiao, (District Lucknow ). A final report (copy Annexure-13 to petition) was submitted by the police of said Police Station (Maidiao) on the ground that in respect of same offence crime has already 4 been registered at Nadehi (in the State of Uttarakhand).The contents of the first information report disclose that though major part of the alleged harassment is said to have taken place within the territorial limits of Lucknow but the phone calls are said to have been made to the complainant at Nadehi. In the circumstances this Court is of the view that the doors of justice cannot be closed for the victim at both the places. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 1 SCC(criminal) 109 and it is argued that the court in Uttarakhand has no jurisdiction in the matter. I have gone through said case law. In said case the Apex Court has observed that since no part of cause of action was found to have taken place in Ganga Nagar as such the court at Ganga Nagar had no jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case since part of cause of action is in the state of Uttarakhand as such the aforesaid case does not help the petitioners. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, attention of this Court is drawn to the letters (copies of which are annexed as Annexure 14 to the petition ) said to have been written by the 5 victim, and it is contended that the alleged victim has nowhere complained in her letters that she was harassed for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage has taken place in May 2001, and these letters are of the month of May and June, 2001. There are other letters annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 Raghubir Singh Gahlot(complainant) which pertain to the subsequent period and in these letters it is said that the victim has conveyed to her parents relating to demand of dowry and harassment for non fulfilment thereof .This Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot decide the factual disputes as to whether the victim actually suffered harassment for non fulfilment of demand of dowry or not. It is for the trial court to see after recording evidence whether the petitioners are innocent, or not. 6. In the above circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the state, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to be interfered with under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, without 6 expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed off without unreasonable delay. Dt:13.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 7