^esr ^rraT^T, ijiTfly^^, Ri^iyy an^T •CRISK ( Uc(^«l(SW) an^si.^r R-iicii TWISn^T sbl,|si ^)'4l<?1'4lrl ^l^cif ^ 'feT3T l;?.P:;i'LtJ.!< ^? srSiTT sn^i S.B. HON. SHRI JUSTICE DHlfeENDRA MISHRA,_J CR.M.P. NOJ 53 OF 2006 APPLICANTS 1. 2. 3. levraj Mukherjee, S/o Prashant [ukherjee, aged about 32 jears. frashant Mukerjee, S/o Iflerachand Mukerjee, aged about (^9 years. ^ayanti Mukerjee, W/o. Ifrashant Mukerjee, aged about ^8 years. 411 R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Ijlehru Nagar, Bilaspur District ^ilaspur (C.G.) VEfltSUS NON-APPLICANTS itate of Chhattisgarh, Through itation In Charge, Mahila Police Station Durg, District Durg ;.G.) Smt. Nivedita Mukerjee, W/o. pevraj Mukerjee, aged about 26 ^ears, R/o. Dbsit Colony, House lo. 485, Nehru Nagar (East) ^hilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 29.8.2007 coundel Shri Sunil Otwani, The applicants by the ii of the Cr.P.C. have prayed for for the applicants. in^tant petition under Section 482 (jiuashing the trial proceedings of GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50.FOO S^ET ^ww^, •QTlm'w, wvftwy ^ ^IIMrtl A^ileb an^?r 'vw ( siit^r.w Ki-ii'ti 'itqisiR^ gnra? i^nw ^tfCT sn^i ^i*([<r(4lTi •'fl^f^, 'f^st ^sifgTtarcSf criminal case No. 1046/04 on of action arose within the JL First Class, Durg. [he ground that no part of cause juijisdiction of Judicial Magistrate Leamed counsel for the allegations present in the Fiijst allegations in the charge shee|; would be evident that thel complainant was subjected demand of dowry within the ju^- 4.pplicants submitted that even if Inforination Report and the are accepted in its entirety, it -e is no allegation that the harassment in the name of ^isdiction of Court at Bilaspur. tb On the other hand, leaifned counsel for the State/non- applicant No. 1 referring to (^iaiy statements of complainant Nivedita Mukherjee and her brother Shubrat Ganguli, has submitted that there is an ^llegation against the husband Devraj that he telephoned froij-i Delhi and deraanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- through his parefits and accordingly, on the said demand a sum of Rs.lO,OOQ/- was sent by brother of the i complainant through demanp draft to Delhi, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage charge sheet pardcularly the that no part of cause of action arose to the complainant withij-i the jurisdiction of JMFC, Durg. Taking into consideratic^n the allegations present in the statements referred to above by learned counsel for the Statejthis Court is of the opinion that GR.PRJ — FS/246— 2/2007 - 5C.OQU. 3^T -^ww^, 'a'^wie,, ^fftwy. ® sn^r iraq; (ijcifap^w^ sn^T.^ii R-ii<* ^mi3II^¥l g?qfe 'FRnw'(if??[ 3)1^1 K? no ground pertaining to lack o| made out for interference und^r In the result, the pedt| hereby dismissed at the admis| ^Rraferah •WRff'9 fecCT TfsresK ^? SIRPT 3iR?T jurisdiction of the trial Court is Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. (on being without substance is ^ion stage itself. _,^.-—-