HIGttI COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOITBI^ 8HM JWSTICB PRTTHHCBR DIWAIOBR CR.M.P. WO. 26872009 APPUCAWT Versus RB8POMDBMT Kamal Narayaa Soad, aged 31 ycars, sozi of Shri Gaaesh Prasad Soaii, resident of Sonarpara, Mungeli, Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CO) State o£ Ctihattisgarh, Throu^h. (hc poMce station Balod, Distt. Durg (CG) APPUCATION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OP THB CODB GP CRIMIKAL PROCBDimB. 1973 Aopearatiee: Shn Somnaffai Verma, coiinsel for tfae petitiQiier. Stai M.P.S-Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for fhe State. ORAI.ORIWR (17.06.2009) By fhe present petition, ttie petitioner is seeking reltef for quashiag of FIR^ eharge sheet aad cnmiaal proceediaga mitiated agaiast hioi. Contention ofleamed eounsel for fhe petitioiier is tihat fhe Balod coiurt has no jurisdicrtion to entertam fhe case aad the case, at best would come witfaia fhe terdtorial jurisdiction ofMungeU. Secoiid contention of the couiisel for the petitioner is that the offence iinder Section 4 of tfae Dowry Prohibitioax Act, 1961 is being iavok<rf withoat permission of fhe State Govemment or fhe com^teiit authority, fhe same caiinot be done. Replyiag to fhe ai^ument of the eoiaiisel for fbe petitioner^ kanied CQUIIBCI for the State submits fhat a bare readiag of fhe FIR acid the statement under Section 161 -A..L. Cr.P,C of fhe complaiaaat makes it clear fhat Balod court has the jiirisdictk)n as the demaiid was redsed at Balod ateo. He furfher submits fhat fhe complaio.aiit ia her stateiaent under Section 161 Cr,P,C. has veiy specificaUy narrated fhat on 3-4 occasions, the applicaat had come to Balod and fhen fhe demaiid was raised. In respect of tibie second argument fhat witihiout permission of the competent authority or tibte State Goverament, fhe coiut could not have proceeded, Shri Bhatia submits fhat it is not only fhe ca< under Dowry PrQhibition Act but also under Sectioa 498 of fhe IPC is ahso fherc and therefore also^ tlie coiirt was justified in proceeding furfher. I have heard counsel for fhe parties aad penised fhe record. There are number ofwitoesses who have eategorically stated fhat the demand of dowry ao^d cruelly was doae at Balod also aad fherefore at fhis stage, it cannotbe said ffaat fhe Balod Court has no jiidsdiction. Likewise^ submission of Shri Verma fhat wifhout permission of fhe State Goverament or fhe coxapetent aufhority^ fhe court could not have proceeded, is ill foitaded because as per the own showiag of fhe applicaiit, oflfence under Section 498 of fhe IPC has also been registered and fhe Court is talEuag cogmzao.ee. This Court is <rffhe coxisidercd opmioii tiat fbe petition has no substaace and is aocordmgly dismi^sed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^