1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2009 1. Smt. Kantuben K. Dakra ) age 47 years, ) 2. Shri Kamlesh Khodabhai Dakra ) age 30 years ) 3. Smt. Kailash Bharatbhai Dudhat ) Age 27 years ) All adults, residing at House No.67, ) 1st floor, Sadhna Society, ) Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-3. )..Petitioners (Org.Accused) Versus 1. Smt. Bhavika K. Dakra ) Adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ: ) Housewife, residing at 18, ) Annapurna Sadan, A.K.Road, ) Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069. ) 2. The State of Maharashtra. )..Respondents Mr. Prakash Shetty,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.A.Shetty, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 10th June, 2010. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for 2 the parties. 2. The respondent No.1 is wife of the petitioner No.2 - Kamlesh. Petitioner No.1 is mother and petitioner No.3 is sister of the petitioner No.2. Petitioner no.2 and respondent No.1 were married on 6.2.1999 at Bhavnagar, in Gujarat State. After the marriage, the respondent No.1 went to live with her husband at Surat. In November,2006, the respondent No.1 filed an application in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. against in all seven persons, including the present petitioners. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 165/SW of 2006. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused. That order was challenged by the accused persons in Criminal Revision Application No.912 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. That Revision Application was partly allowed and the order of issuance of process against the accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 was set aside. Being not satisfied, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. According to them, no case is made out for issuance of process and that a false complaint has been filed about 4 years after the complainant had left the house of her husband. It is also contended that from the contents of the complaint, it is clear that no offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and whatever offence, 3 if any, was committed at Surat, in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to issue process. 3. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that engagement had taken place at Mumbai about one month before the marriage. The marriage was performed at Bhavnagar and after the marriage, the complainant went to live at her husband's place at Surat. According to her, gold and silver ornaments and other articles and cash were given as consideration of marriage on demand by the accused persons at the time of engagement and at the time of marriage. According to her, from time to time, demands were made and she was harassed for not bringing money from parents. She also contends that on 10.10.2002 (as stated by the learned Counsel for the complainant though in the complaint the date is 10.10.2007),amount of Rs.5 lakh was paid and further amount of Rs.5 lakh was paid on 5.4.2003. As per the complaint, in April 2002, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had left her at her parents' place at Andheri . They had told her in the month of June,2003 that if she would fail to bring further amount of Rs.10 lakh, they would never allow her to come back to their house. Admitedly, a case under Section 307 was registered against the father of the complainant sometime in September,2003 on the allegation that he had attempted to commit murder of the uncle of her father-in-law - accused No.1. Prima facie,there appears some 4 inconsistency about dates or about payment because, according to her own allegation in para 4, she was living at her parents' place in April 2002 while in para 3, she states that amount of Rs.5 lakh was paid on 10.10.2007 (which should be 10.10.2002 as per the counsel for the complainant) and further amount of Rs.5 lakh was paid on 5.4.2003. It means that both these payments were made after she had left the husband's house. Admittedly, she was not living at her husband's house after April, 2002. It appears that after these payments, further demand of Rs.10 lakh was made in June 2003. It may be noted that the complaint was not made under the provisions of the Dowry Act. The complaint is made under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. because her gold and silver ornaments were allegedly misappropriated by the accused persons and they had also treated her with cruelty. Admittedly, in the Marriage Petition filed by the husband,on the application of wife, a Court Commissioner was appointed and, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, her ornaments were found in the house of husband and an inventory of the same was prepared. That was also at Surat. From this, it is clear that offence of misappropriation, if any, was committed at Surat. She was treated with cruelty at Surat and thus both the offences under Sections 406 and 498A were allegedly committed at Surat. No part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides 5 that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. There is nothing to show that the case would fall under any other provisions due to which the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai would get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In view of this, without entering into the merits of the case, it appears that the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, to take cognizance of the same and to issue process. On this ground only, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order of process has to be quashed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sessions Court is hereby set aside and the order to issue process against the petitioners is hereby quashed . However, the complainant-respondent shall be at liberty to file a complaint on same cause of action before the Court having jurisdiction. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)