5.cr wp 531-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2010 Baliram Laxmanrao Kendre .. Petitioner Vs Dyaneshwari Baliram Kendre & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Milan Desai i/b T.R. Patel for the Petitioner Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused no. 1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is that process issued against him under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 2600066/SS/2008 be quashed. The said case is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. 3. The petitioner was married to respondent no. 1 in the year 2005. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioner and others under Section 498A and 406 read with 34 of IPC. On perusal of the complaint, I find that a case under Section 498A and 406 is clearly made out against the Petitioner. 1 5.cr wp 531-10.doc 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate directed inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and pursuant thereto, statement of the complainant came to be recorded on 11th January 2008. He submitted that the said statement does not say that there was any demand for dowry or any cruelty or harassment to the complainant. I have perused the statement dated 11th January 2008. In the said statement there is a clear averment about harassment and cruelty to the complainant by the accused including the petitioner and it also makes a reference to a demand for dowry. In the said statement, the complainant has clearly stated about mental as well as physical harassment to her by the accused. Thus, there is no merit in this submission. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and he could not have issued process. He submitted that the incident took place in District Latur, hence the complaint could not have been filed in Mumbai. In order to support his contention that the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Magistrate in Mumbai, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004 ALL M.R. (Cri) 3400 (S.C.). He pointed 2 5.cr wp 531-10.doc out that in the said decision, the complainant had filed a complaint at Chennai whereas all the acts were alleged to have taken place at Nagercoil. The Supreme Court held that as no part of cause of action arose at Chennai, the complaint could not have been filed in Chennai. However, in the present case, on going through the complaint, it is noticed that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that even after she came to Mumbai, harassment by accused to her continued. Thus, it is seen that some part of the cause of action has taken place in Mumbai. As some part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, the learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. In view of the above facts, the petition is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3 5.cr wp 531-10.doc 4