IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. NO. 1 2010 PETITIONERS 1. Hafij Khan, S/o Nihal Khan Aged about 36 years, 2. Smt. Gulshan Begam, W/o Safiq Khan Aged About 35 years y 3. Salim Khan S/o Nihal Khan Aged bo\\~i;...%zs~g about 50 years, D “Np ‘ 4. Safiq Khan S/o Nihal Khan aged (9/ about 4O years,’ A11 are resident of quarter no. Durg, C.G. (Complainant) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 197§ a; .3 1 1 F/9/A, Nand Nikunj, Nandgram A?” a w Colony, Police Station Sihano SE?” (Mr Gate, Gaziabad, U.P. M3 (Accused) V E R S U S RESPONDENT Vahida Begam W/o Hafij Khan Aged about 33 years, R/o 24 Shivaji Nagar, Police Station Supela Bhilai, tahsil and District HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Cr.M.P No.288l 2010 PETITIONER Hafij Khan 8L Ors. Versus RESPONDENT Vahida Begam [Petition 1.1[S 482 of the Cr;P.C) . Apgearance: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel'for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 19.7.2011) Heard. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Case No.1166/09, whereby cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent has been taken and offence under Section 498—A of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners and process has been issued against the petitioners. ' 3. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under Sections 419, 420, 494 8L 498—A of the IPC as a1so Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1t has been averred in the complaint that the petitioners, at the time of marriage, had taken dowry and that after the marriage, respondent~complainant was subjected to cruelty on more than one occasions in her matrimonial house at Gaziabad. After the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant herself and also statement of complainant’s witness—Subrati Khan 8r, Taffar Hussain. Vide impugned order dated 9.11.2009, the learned Magistrate has recorded that prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 498-A‘ read with Section 34 is made out and has proceeded to take cognizance by registering offence under Section 498-A and issued process. .‘Assailing the correctness and validity of order of the Magistrate, by which cognizance has been taken and offence has been registered under Section 498—A of the IPC, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the even if the entire complaint as also preliminary statements of the complainant and her Witnesses are taken on its face value, no part of offence was alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate taking cognizance. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in para-4 of the complaint, ,it has been alleged that when the complainant had gone to her matrimonial house, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. As she was pregnant, she had come to her parental house. Thereafter, when she again went to Gaziabad in the year 2000 and stayed there for 20 to 25 days, she was again beaten and shunted out of the house. Thereafter, she came back -3- @ to her parental house. It is further averred that when she again went to her matrimonial house at Gaziabad in February, 2003, dowry of RS2 lakh was demanded and when complainant’s brother expressed his inability to meet out the demands, complainant was not allowed totenter the house and she again came back to her parental house. at Bhilai and lodged report in Mahila Police Thana, Durg on 12.12.2003. When the complainant instituted proceedings for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.'P,,.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in order to save themselves from Court proceedings, an assurance was given that husband will keep the complainant with him, upon which, matter was compromised and on that basis, a compromise between the parties was recorded by the Court on 23rd January, 2004. It has also been alleged in the complaint that when the complainant along with her daughter went to Gaziabad, her husband kept her in a separate house and after 4-6 months, physical and mental cruelty again started and she was subjected to beating. The complainant also states that the husband had filed a suit against her in the Court of Civil Judge, Gaziabad, which has also been dismissed. It is also averred that on 2.8.2006, complainant and her daughter was shunted out of the matrimonial house, upon which, a written c0mplaint was given to Sr. Police Superintendent, Gaziabad and complainant came back to her parental house at Bhilai and then lodged report in Mahila Police Station, Durg, on 12.12.2003 and when no action was taken, the complaint is being tiled. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the preliminary statements also @ make allegation of cruelty committed at Gaziabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that in none of the allegations, it has anywhere been alleged that the complainant was subjected to cruelty- mental or physical at Bhilai and all the allegations pertain to commission of offence at Gaziabad. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and ors. Vs. inspector of Police, Chennai and orsl and the order passed by this Court in the case of Pratap Chand Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of C.G. 85 another2 it has been submitted that the Magistrate at Durg had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint or take cognizance as none of the part of the offence is alleged to have been committed within his territorial jurisdiction. . On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the offence under Section 498-A is continuing one and the effect and impact of the offence was that the respondent was compelled to live in her parental house at Bhilai. He further submits that the respondent remained in mental stress and -agony in her parental house and, therefore, in these circumstances, the act of the petitioners in shunting her out of the matrimonial house and compel her to reside in her parental house at Bhilai constituted commission of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and as such the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the respondent had been residing along with her parents, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance by registering offence under 1 2004 (3) Cn'mes 227 (so) 2 2006 (1) c.G.L.J. 101 Section 498—A of the IPC. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the respondent placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sujata, Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. If the entire complaint is read along with the preliminary statements of the complaint and her two witnesses, the allegation are that the complainant was subjected to cruelty of the kind alleged in the complaint While she resided With or approached the petitioners at Gaziabad. I have carefully gone through the entire complaint and the preliminary statements and I do no find that there is any iota of allegation that the complainant was subjected to cruelty at her parental house at Bhilai. Merely because the complainant had been residing at Bhilai along with her parents, it cannot be said that the offence was continuing one. 8. Identical situation has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) and also by this Court in the cases of Pratap Chand Rathore (supra). 9. Therefore, I have no hesitation in my mind that the learned Magistrate at Durg had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance thereof by registering offence 3 1997 CR1 L.J. 2985 under Section 498-A 'of the IPC against -the petitioners. It is relevant to‘ note that the learned Magistrate at Durg has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498—A of the IPC only and not of other offence alleged in the complaint. 10. Reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent in the case of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra) is misconceived., In that case, considering the allegation that the complainant was subjected to cruel treatment persistently at Raigarh and also at Raipur and that incident taking place at Raipur is not an isolated event, but consequential to the series of incidents taking place at Raigarh, on facts, it was held that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted out to the complainant in the hands of the accused and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the accused persons had taken part and on other occasion, one of the accused had taken part. On such consideration of the allegations on the face of complaint made in, that case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the concerned Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The present case is clearly distinguishable, because there are no allegations at all that any part of the maltreatment or harassment or cruelty was continued at parental house at the time the complainant was residing in her parental house at Bhilai. The aforesaid decision therefore does not help the case of the respondent. -11. In the result, this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure P-l), by which, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, has taken cognizance and registered offence under Section 498-A of the IPC against the petitioners in Case No.1166/09, is quashed. 12. In View of the iindings which have been recorded above, the complaint as filed, is not maintainable in law and, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings on the complaint of respondent are quashed. 13. It would be open for the complainant to file complaint against the petitioners if she so desires, before the appropriate forum, having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Faveen