1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1424/2009 1. Shri Sapan Bholanath Mal, aged about 31 years, Occ. Business. 2. Shri Tapan Bholanath Mal, aged about 35 years, Occ. Business. 3. Sau. Chandana w/o Tapan Mal, aged about 26 years, Occ. Nil, All applicant nos. 1 to 3 r/o Ragarpura, Karolagh, Galli no. 9, New Delhi. .. APPLICANTS .. Versus .. 1. The State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S.O. P.S. Tahsil, tq. Dist. Nagpur. 2. Sau. Sushma Sapan Mal, aged 20 years, r/o Baburao Galli, Bada Jain Mandir, Samant Niwas, Itwari, Nagpur. .. NON APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. D. Randive, Advocate for applicants. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 Mr. M. N. Upadhyay, Advocate for non applicant no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 17 th August, 2009 P. C. 1. Non applicant no.2 had filed First Information Report with Nagpur Police Station on 24.03.2007 being First Information Report No. 80/2007, alleging that the applicants had committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said First Information Report was investigated and 2 charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.4) Nagpur. The applicants filed an application for discharge in the said Court vide Regular Criminal Case No.3030/2007. The said application was treated as Exh.-2 and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.4) rejected the said application by order dated 22.12.2008. Against that order, the applicants have come to this Court with two prayers. By prayer Clause (1) he wants to have proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 3030/2007 quashed and set aside and alternatively he wants that a direction should be given to the Police to filed charge-sheet at Delhi Court. 2. I have heard learned Advocates for both sides. It was vehemently argued by learned Advocates for the applicants that even if we take the First Information Report as alleged, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Nagpur and, therefore, Nagpur Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said complaint. He had relied upon the provisions of Section 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had tried to submit that since non applicant no. 2 was at Delhi all along and allegations mentioned in the entire charge-sheet if perused are indicative of the fact that the said allegations relate to the instances which are said to have taken place at Delhi and not at Nagpur. According to him, no part of cause of action has arises at Nagpur and, 3 hence Nagpur Court has no jurisdiction. It was also argued by him that on reading of the First Information Report as a whole no case is made out to show that offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He prays for quashing of the First Information Report. 3. As against this, learned A.P.P. Mr. Yengal argued that prima facie case is made out and the Court below was right in rejecting the application. 4. Learned Advocate for non applicant no.2 submitted that on telephone brother of non applicant no. 2 was asked to pay substantial amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and it was ordered that the money should be delivered at Delhi. Hence, brother of non applicant no.2 had to somehow arrange for the funds at Nagpur and carry it to Delhi and meet the illegal demand of the applicants. According to learned Advocate for non applicant no. 2, demand of money to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- by its itself constitute cruelty when there was no justification for demand and because moneys were physically parted by brother of non applicant no. 2, the said demand is fulfilled and, therefore, overt act on the part of the applicants of demanding and receiving the same constitutes an offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act even leaving apart the other allegations of cruelty which are mentioned in the charge-sheet. 4 Learned Advocate for the applicants had relied upon judgment in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others ..vs.. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another; AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4286. Learned Advocate for the applicants had made efforts to invite my attention to the entire judgment and in particular the reasons given by the Supreme Court with reference to the term the cause of action and provisions of Section 177 and 178 in support of his stand that no prima facie case is made out and even if it is made out, Nagpur Court has no jurisdiction. 5. I have considered the record. In my view, if it is stated in the first information report by non applicant no. 2 that telephonic call was made by the applicants to non applicant no.2 at Nagpur, demanding Rs.1,50,000/- and the said demand having been fulfilled, a prima facie case for charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out and there are certain other allegations in the body of the First Information Report which speak of the acts made by the applicants qua non applicant no. 2 amounting to cruelty. Considering the record, prima facie I am satisfied that part of cause of action as mentioned in Section 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has arisen within the territorial limits of Nagpur Court and it shall have jurisdiction to try and entertain the case. If this is the position, there is no question of quashing of 5 the first information report as well as issuing directions to non applicant- State to file charge-sheet in some Court. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the application. The same is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are to be taken as limited for the purposes of discussion of this order and the learned trial Judge shall proceed with the trial on merits of the case. While deciding question whether prima facie case is made out, physical presence of the lady at Nagpur who has been subjected to cruelty was not seen in this case because here is a case where brother of non applicant no. 2 was asked to comply with the demand of dowry and to that extent the demand of dowry having been fulfilled, ingredients of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are fulfilled. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for the applicant has made one more effort to have the matter transferred to Delhi. Since this is a case of inter-State transfer, the applicants will have to approach appropriate Court for said order. JUDGE kahale