1 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4523/2010 1) Vijaykumar s/o Tulshiram Pawar Age: 68 Yrs., occu. Nil R/o Kautha, Tq. And Dist.Nanded. 2) Sumitra w/o Vijaykumar Pawar, Age:65 Yrs., occu. Household, R/o as above. = PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Inspector Police Station, Ambajogai Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2) Deepa w/o Tshar Pawar Age:30 Yrs., occu. Household, R/o Kautha, Tq. And Dist. Nanded.At present r/o Ambajogai, Tq. & Dist.Beed.= RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4717/2010 1) Tushar s/o Vijaykumar Pawar Age: 36 Yrs., occu. Service as Medical Officer, R/o Kautha, Tq. And Dist. Nanded. = PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Inspector Police Station, Ambajogai Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2) Deepa w/o Tshar Pawar 2 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 Age:30 Yrs., occu. Household, R/o Kautha, Tq. And Dist. Nanded.At present r/o Vidya Kunj Colony, Ambajogai, Tq. & Dist.Beed. = RESPONDENTS **** Mr.NL Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.VD Godbharale, APP for Resp.No.1/State; Mr.BA Dhengle, Advocate for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 18th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and is heard finally by consent of the parties. 2) These Criminal Applications were heard at length on 3rd October, 2011. 3) Learned Advocate Shri Jadhav has restricted his challenge only to the point of jurisdiction. He has demonstrated from the paper book, particularly 2nd page of FIR, that the place of offence, as mentioned in clause 5 of the FIR was "Kautha District Nanded." 4) This Court had called upon the Investigating officer to file an affidavit as to 3 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 how the complaint could be entertained at Ambejogai, when FIR discloses place of commission of offence at Kautha, District Nanded. 5) The Officer, who was incharge of investigation has filed an affidavit, answering the query. 6) In the affidavit, the Investigation Officer concerned, has narrated the circumstances, based on which, the FIR has been registered. The explanation is tendered in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, which reads as under : "3. .............................. It is stated in the FIR that the Respondent no.2 along with her husband were residing in the house of accused No.6 – Dr. Sau.Sujata Nandkumar Somwanshi at Ambajogai till the transfer of her husband from Latur to Jhari Jamni District Yeotmal. During the said period, accused persons have demanded an amount of Rs.5 lacs for purchase of Flat at Latur. They have caused harassment to the Respondent No.2 physically as well as mentally. Father of the complainant has paid Rs. 2 lacs to the accused persons The above referred contents are reflected at page No.44 from 10th line from the bottom............................." 4 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 7) Learned Advocate Mr.Jadhav has addressed that while it is a fact that the contents, referred at 9th line of page 44 and one line at page 45 of the FIR, later part at page 45 contains narration of events occurred at Kautha District Nanded, where alleged act of ill- treatment and dowry related demands were completed. According to learned Advocate Mr.Jadhav, the act of offence under Section 498- A, as complained in the FIR, has culminated into finality at Kautha, Dist. Nanded. 8) Learned Advocate Mr.Jadhav has placed reliance on the following judgments. (a) Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. - 2010 SCC(Cri) 1 1412. (b) Manish Ratan & Ors Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. - 2007 Cr.R. 1 516. (c) Shekhar Shivdas Mahire & Ors. Vs. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire & Anr. - 2010 Cri.L.J. ) 3607; (d) Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. - 2010 Crimes (SC) 4 19; (e) Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar Vs. State of Mah. & Anr. - 2009 (O) AIR (SC) 1792 ; (f) Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. - 2008 (0) IAR (SC) 2180; (g) Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. - 2004 (O) AIR 5 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 (SC) 4286. 9) We have perused the record and judgments relied on by the learned Advocate. 10) It is not in dispute that if the cause of action for filing a complaint consists of various incidents, which constitute offence either taken in isolation or taken together, the police station, within whose jurisdiction any of the incidents, constituting the offence has occurred, would be competent to take cognizance. 11) As is shown to us, 9th line at bottom of page 44 of the FIR, constitute one set of fact, which describe commission of offence. Remaining ill-treatment , as shown in the FIR has occurred at Kautha, district Nanded. 12) Learned Advocate Mr.Jadhav further addressed the circumstances of ill-treatment at Ambejogai are highly improbable in the background that on the given date, husband of respondent no. 2 was already transferred from Latur and was posted at Zari Zamni, district Yeotmal. 13) In so far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, this is not a stage, where the truthfulness etc. in respect of version of 6 Cri.ApplnNos.4523/10 & 4717/10 either of the parties can be gone into by this Court. 14) Only point, which can be gone into at this stage in this court is the question of jurisdiction of Ambejogai police station to register the offence in question. 15) We find from the record that the complaint/FIR contains description as to commission of offence, which has occurred within the jurisdiction of Ambejogai police. The result is that the basic point, on which the Criminal Applications are based, loose the foundation. 16) In the result, the Criminal Applications do not merit interference and they are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/