VslWS-sfVI HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.AA.P.No^313_OF_ZQ07 PETITIONiRS -Vs NON-APPLICANTS , Santosh Koshare & ors State of C.6. <&anp. i.S'f POST FOR ORE>ER; 10/9/2007 Sd/-~ Dhirendrapyljs! Judge iira IU I i: f ;.' ii 'I a i 'M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0.313 OF 2007 PETITIONERS Vs NON-APPLICANTS 1. Santosh Koshare,S/o Champa Lal Koshare, aged about 28 years. Z.ChampaLal Koshare, S/o Munshi Lal Koshare,a9ed about 58 years. 3. Sodawari Koshare, W/o Champa Lal Koshare,aged about 52 years. 4. Ku. Neetu Koshare, D/o Champa Lal Koshare, aged about 22years. 5. Ku. Pinki Koshare. t5/o Champa Lal Koshare, aged about 24 yearS. All are residence of Kris'chin Mohalla, Shyam Na9ar, Raipur, Oistt. •Raipur (C.6.) t. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, burg, District Durg (C.6.) 2. Smt. Anita Koshare, W/o Santosh Koshare,aged about 26 years, R/o Ramnagar, Near State Bank of India 5upela, Bhilai, Distt. burg (C.6.) Present: Mr.Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. 6.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocate Seneral for respondent No.l. O R t> E R (Passed on 10.9.2007) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J; 1. The petitioners by the instant petitionunder Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') have prayed for quashingof the order dated 15.1.2007 of Annexure P-1 passed in Criminal Case No.364/05 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg wherehy the application filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 177 & 178of theCode has been rejected. The petitioners have aFso prayed for quashing of criminal prpceedings ] psnding against them before the Trial Court. i 2. 6rievance of the petitioners is that the complainQnt/ 1 respondent No.2 herefn todged a repprt on 17.1.2005 tothe ^t. ^ Senifcr Superintendentof Police, Durg andon the basis of above complaint offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34of fhe TPC wds registered against the petitioners her'ein and tlie charge sheet was filed by the Mahila Police Station, Durg before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, &urg though the place of incident mentioned in the FlR is Shyam Nagdr, Raipur. The complainant hdd earlier also lodgecl a report on 1.5:2004 with the similar altegations, however, the Station House Qfficer, Police Station Supela after conductihg euquiry Communicated the Senior Superintendent of- Poljce, Durg that the allegations of offence pertains to the Jurisdiction of Raipur and it isnot in connection with the Police Station Supela, Durg. Even from perusal of the written report as also statement of the complainant it is clear thqt the placeof incident is Raipur and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial juFisdiction of the Judicial Mdgistrate First Class, Durg. However, the trialcourt has T'ejected the objectionof the petitioners filed under Sections 177 <& 178 of the Code pe.rtaining to thelackof territorial jurisdiction. RelianGe is place on the judgments reported in the matter of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and ahother & Pratap Chand Rathore and others Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and another . 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused theiinpug^ned order as also the documents annexed with the petition. From perusal of the written report, djary statemjent and otheridocuments filed along wi+h thepetition, it is ^bser'^ed that th'ere dre allegatiohs agdinst the petitiohers ^hdt the 12004 ATft^SCW 4788 '2 Z006 (1) AA.P.HiT. 14 • .^';!';'-i;s^s'3rR^! y'f !l.i :1 !!;rir 41H complainant was married with petitioner No.l, fathep of the complainanT gave dowry according to his capaeity, however, the petitioners started harassing thecomplainant for not giving adequatedowryand in the name of demand of Hero Honda motorcycle she wascompelled to telephone her father for communicating their demand of motorcycle, whereupon she called her father, who residesat Bhilai and expressed his inability tp satisfy their demand. On the next day also her husband called her father to Raipur whereupon her father went to Raipur a1ong_with other relatives where the petitioners misbehaved ,with them also and repeated their demand. Thus, from the evidence avaitable on record it is observed that the demand of dpwry was made through telephone from the parents of the complainant, who are residing at Bhilai, District Durg. The marriage was also solemnized at Durg and there are allegations that the complainant was subjected to torture for not bringing adequate dowry. 5. In the matter of Y. Abraham Ajith the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition of that case has reached to the conclusion that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai, therefore, concerned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and accordingly the proceedings werequashed and the complaint was directed to ' be returned to the complainanT with the liberty thafr if she ehooses, may file the same in the appropriate eourt to be ; dealt wifh in accordance with law, j 6. In the'matter of Pratap Chand Rcthor2 this Cour't] relymg. j Ugon the abpve judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Coui?t and consiclering jthe allegations con't'ai.ned in the ehar'ge sheet reached to the cond-usion that the offence, if an^was ^te^^^^'i';' "ssswsw ,?.^s -:i' committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangalore and accordingly, quashed the criminal proceedings. However, in the present case there are allegations That the complainant was tortured for demand of dowry at Raipur and thereafter she was forced to commynicate their demand to her parents, who are stationed within the terriforial jurisdiction of the trialcourt,and after calling them from Bhilai the demand was further reiterated. 7. It is settled law that powers under Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised spa'ringly, earefully and with caution and only when such exerciss is justified by the testsspecificajly laid down in the section itself.It has to be exercised only when it finds that initiation/continuance of criminal proceeding amounts to abuseof process of courtand quashing would serve the ends of justice. For quaShing the compldint, the allegations made in the complaint are to be acceptedin its entirety and only when it does not constitute prima-facie offence or makeout a case alleged against the accused, the complaint can be quashed. So faras the document of Annexure P-2 is concerned, this document cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 8. In the result, there is no illegalityor infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby theobjections relating to lackof territorial jurisdiction has been rejected by the trial court. The petition |of the petitioners has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge