(APPLICATJZQN UNDER SECUON 482 QF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL. PRCCEDURE) {SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P,5harmas J.) ?re$en'h 5hri ?ur-ag Kofecha, counse‘ for ’rhe app‘icanh‘. $hr'i Sanjezv Kumur Agrawal, Panel Lawyer- far‘ The 5mm. ORAL ORDER. @assed an 30’“ Jur.s, 2009) L The agpliccm‘rs have filed this pe‘m’ion under Section 482 cf the Code ‘F Criminei Pmcedure, 1973 (in 'shgr‘r ‘Code') for quashmen? of the order dufed 12.2.2009 ygssed by the Third Additiedal §essiens Judge, Empty, in Criminal Revision Ne.02./09 affirmii'ig fine order- daied 21.10.2908 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No.136mE the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has rejected the arriplicaticn for dismissal at criminal case on the graund of territarial whereby iurisdiction. b my I$H CGURT OF GHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P’No.258 9f 2009 1 Agnsgicants 1‘ Surendra Pmsad 5hrivasmva, aged ‘ abouf 57 year‘s: Sfo La‘re Baidev Frasad ‘ Shi‘ivasi‘ava, A 2‘ Ku. Shgmdha Shrivasmva aged a-cu1’ 22 years, 3. Ashish 5hrivastava aged abcmt 32 year's, 4. Anukampo. Shrivasmm aged. about 2$ years, v Appiimh‘r No.2 to 4 Pismn Surendm / Pmsad Shrivasfava, All residen‘r of Street No9, Rajendm. nugor, Safna (MP) Versus Nero—agglimm The State nf Chhm‘fisgarhl through, Coiiecfor', Raipur (CE) Z ‘ 2. I have heard learned, counsel for ‘l'he par-ties. 3. . Learned counsei far fhe appiicam- submi‘l’s that flue en'!’ire cause of action Fm" the offence punishable under Section 498-A Qf fhe Endian ?em! Cade arose at Same and Bhopal (MR) n91- within The ferri‘roria! jurisdicfion 9f the Cour't simm‘ed a? Raipur but the trial Cnurt has wrangly rejected the GPP lication filed by the applicants under Section 177 of the Cede. 4. On the other hand, erder impugned is supported on behalf of the respondent and submite that according to the statements of the witnesses, the applicants have demanded dewr-y at the time of marriage at Raipur, / therefore, substantive cause also arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Raipur and the trial Court has rightly rejected the app l ieation. $ h. Counsel for the parties have admitted that witnesses have stated in their statements regarded under Section 161 af the Cede that the present appellants have demanded dowry at the time of marriage at Raipuri Demand of dowry is a cruelty within the meaning of &ction 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the same is substantive piem under explanation of clause (b) of iSection 498—A of the Indian Penal Code. $tatements recorded under Section 161 of the Code show that cause of action for the offence \ punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code partly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Raipur and also within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at 5atna and Bhopal In such cases, the Court situated at Raipur is empowered to try the offence in q accordance with clause {b) of §ection 178 of the Code. Learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicants. i do not find any ground for invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. é, Consequently, the petition is liable to he dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. I.A.No.01 thus stands disposed of.