* 1 * Cri.Appln. 3244.2010 6.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3244 OF 2010 Mr. Ganesh Pandurang Vaidya, and anr. ..... Applicants V/S. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..... Respondents * * * * Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. C.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 6th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The only prayer now pressed by the applicant in this application is for transfer of proceedings on the ground that the Court at Kalyan has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Section 177 Criminal Procedure Code. Perusal of the complaint, copy of which is annexed to the application, shows that each and every allegation of cruelty had allegedly taken place at the matrimonial home of the applicant and respondent no.2 at Jalgaon. As per the complaint itself, the applicant herein resided with her parents till 19th July, 2008. Thereafter, father of respondent no.2 had requested the applicant and his family members to take respondent no.2 to the matrimonial home. * 2 * Cri.Appln. 3244.2010 6.7.2011 As nobody came to fetch her to the matrimonial home, she filed complaint herein after a lapse of more than a year i.e. on 6th August, 2009. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant, submits that since there are no allegations of any ill-treatment at the place where respondent no.2 has been residing since July 2008 and since the entire allegations pertain to the matrimonial home of the complainant, the Court at the place where she presently resides with his parents has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He relies upon the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shekhar Shivdas Mahire & Ors. V/s. Sou. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire & anr. reported in 2010 All MR (Cri.) page 1766 in which in identical set of facts, it has been held that the only Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is the place where the complainant was subjected to ill-treatment. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to argue relying upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish and Others V/s. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 1998 Cri. L.J. Page 554 that the offence under Section 498A being continuing offence, the Court at place of her parents home would also have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. The facts of the case before the Rajasthan High Court are distinctly different. There were allegations of * 3 * Cri.Appln. 3244.2010 6.7.2011 ill-treatment when the complainant was at the parents house. It was alleged that when the complainant was living at her parents house a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- had been made with a threat that failure to meet the demand would lead to the consequence of the complainant remaining at her parents home. On these specific set of facts, it was held that the offence under Section 498A was a continuing offence and the act of cruelty had continued even while the complainant was at her parents house. The offence was therefore triable by both the Courts i.e. the Court at the place of matrimonial home or the parent’s house. In the case on hand, there are no allegations of any harrassment to respondent no.2 while she is at the parent’s house. 3. The application is allowed. The proceedings pertaining to C.R. No.145/2009 dated 6th August, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 564 of 2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan are transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jalgaon. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]