IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 783 of 2005 1. Gabbar Singh Rawat S/o Sri Shankar Singh Rawat 2. Smt. Bhajni Devi W/o Sri Gabbar Singh Rawat 3. Vipin Singh Rawat S/o Sri Gabbar Singh Rawat All R/o B-445 New Colony, Ram Ganga Pariyojna, Kalagarh, P.S. Kalagarh District Pauri Garhwal. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Neema Rawat W/o Sri Vipin Singh Rawat D/o Kundan Singh Gosain R/o Village Kundeshwari P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for respondent No. 1/State. Shri Mohd. Umar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri, B.S. Negi, counsel for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 1388 of 2005, State Vs. Gabbar Singh Rawat and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 3-Vipin Singh Rawat, got married to respondent No. 2-Meena Rawat on 05.12.2000. After the marriage, respondent No. 2 started living with her husband in Kalagarh. However, it is alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the petitioners demanded dowry and on its non fulfilment, she was subjected to cruelty. She has pleaded in the First Information Report that she was forced to leave her husband’s house when she was pregnant. On 21.09.2001, she delivered a female child at her parental house. It is pleaded that after some talks of compromise, she was taken in the year 2002 to her husband’s house but again subjected to cruelty and forced to leave said house on 16.02.2003, and thereafter she is living in her parental house at Kashipur. On the basis of said First Information Report (copy annexure-1 to the petition) a crime No. 1959 of 2005, was registered and after investigation, impugned charge-sheet was filed in respect of offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioner No. 1-Gabbar Singh Rawat (father-in- law), petitioner No. 2-Bhajni Devi (mother-in-law) and petitioner No. 3-Vipin Singh Rawat (husband). 3 The Magistrate appears to have summoned the accused to face the trial. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of District Pauri Garhwal, and the court at Kashipur has no jurisdiction in the matter. Having gone through the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and other papers on record, including the First Information Report, it appears to be true that the entire cause of action in this matter has arisen within the territorial limits of Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, and no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Therefore, following the principle of law, laid down in Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. and another (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 262, this Court by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 407 Cr.P.C., feels it just and proper to transfer the impugned trial to the court of Judicial Magistrate, at Kotdwar. 5. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the record of the criminal case No. 1388 of 2005, State Vs. Gabbar Singh Rawat and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition 4 Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, is hereby transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, at Kotdwar, and such court shall proceed with the trial. It is further observed that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail applications, shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:01.04.2010 Sweta (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)