IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 849 of 2007 Pawan Kumar Singhwal S/o Sri Suresh Kumar Singhwal R/o 486/87/6, Khel Bazar, Panipat Haryana. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Smt. Rupali W/o Pawan Kumar Singhwal D/o Sri Gopal, at present R/o House No. 100, Sanjay Gandhi Colony Roorkee, P.S. Gang Nahar, Roorkee District Haridwar. ……….Respondents. Shri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for respondent No. 1. Shri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 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 petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of criminal case No. 2613 of 2007, Smt. Rupali Vs. Pawan Kumar Singhwal, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner got married to respondent No. 2 on 22.01.2006, at Roorkee. A criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 2, against the present petitioner and his other relatives, alleging that in the marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner, her parents gave 89 items, valued Rs. 3,09,100/-, mentioned in the list 1, filed with the criminal complaint. Said items include refrigerator, washing machine, T.V., sofa set, cutlery etc. 4. It is pleaded in the criminal complaint that the petitioner and his relatives were not happy with the dowry and respondent No. 2 was harassed and made to leave on 18.10.2006, the house of the petitioner in Haryana. Alleging misappropriation of the items of stridhan belonging to respondent No. 2, the criminal complaint, was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, which was registered as criminal case No. 2613 of 2007. 5. The Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned only the petitioner-Pawan Kumar Singhwal (husband), as an accused in the criminal complaint case. As to the other accused, the Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 09.10.2007, observed that since it is not clear from the record, other relatives received the items, mentioned in the 3 criminal complaint, as such, they were not summoned to face the trial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that misappropriation, if any, cannot be said to have been made within the territorial limits of Roorkee, as such, Judicial Magistrate, has committed error of law in summoning the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal complaint case. In this connection, reliance is placed in the case of Y.Abraham Ajit Vs. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 100. 7. I have gone through the aforesaid case law and the facts of the present case. The facts of the present case are different to the facts of the case referred on behalf of the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that where no part of cause of action has arisen, the Magistrate, has no power to deal with the matter in respect of offence, alleged in the complaint. Said case pertains substantially to Section 498A I.P.C. and also to one punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The present case, before this Court, relates only to offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Since the marriage took place at Roorkee, and the articles are said to have been entrusted at Roorkee, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action, in the present case, in respect of offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., arose within the territorial limits of the court at Roorkee. 4 8. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court finds no error of law, committed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in summoning the accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. 9. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner-Pawan Kumar Singhwal, surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:22.03.2010 Sweta