if;! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Hon-AnBUcant/Accuaed (1) (2) (3) VERSUS RE8PONDBNTS CX>MPLAINBNT Cr.M.P. No. 174 OF 2009 Rakesh Siagh Thakur, Age about 46 Years Son of ]ate Shyam lal Siagh Thakur,-Occupation-Advocate (Taxation). Sm.t. Rukhman Devi W/o Late Shyain lal Singh 'Thakur, Age About 70 Years. Smt. Radhlka Devi W/o Late PUu Siugh Age About 92 Years AU of fh.cm are Resident of Choukhadiya Para Rajnandgaoa (C.G.). Smt. Saraswati Devi Thakur W/o Rakesh Singh Thakur Age about 42 Years R/o Vffl. And Post-Kumd, P.S.- JamulTah. Aad Distfc -Durg (C.G.). In the original coniplamt case name of accused no. 2 bas been deleted as he died, and name of no, 5 has been deleted as she declared abscond. M^aOOFLPBTmQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THB CODE OF CRI1WINAL PROCTiDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon'Me Mr. T.P.Shaima, J.) Present:-. Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sourabh Dangi, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passedoa 30/10/2009) This petition uuder Section 482 of fhe Code of Criiniual Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code') for quashiuent ofthe order dated 14/ 1/09 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg ia com.plaint case N0. 711/2008 whereby leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the appUcation fUed under Sectious 177 & 178 ofthe Code. Order is chaUenged on the groiind that Court below has committed an iUegality disinissiug fhe application on the complamt pendmg before fhe Court below is Uable for quash. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. u^ fe!i?T^!^^": ^^^^c^.';^;^-.-? w^ 4, Order iinpugned aad record of Courts below perused. 5, Leamed counscl for the petitioners subxaits that the ofiFence piuushabfc uader Sections 494 aad 498-A of the Indiau Penal Code have not been committed within fhe territorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at District Durg thereforc such criininal proceediug peadiag before fhe Court below is abuse offhe process ofttie Court. 6. On fh.e other haad, leamed counsel for fhe respoudent opposed the petition and subauts that Court below is having jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Accordiag to fhe record of fhe trial Court complaiat has been registered against fhe petitioners vide order dated 18/2/97, petitioner had not challenged the order taking cogaizatice but after lapse of 12 years fhey have filed fhe application on the grouad of territorial jurisdictioa which has been dismissed. 8. Accordiug to the coinplaiut aud niaterial coUected on behalf of the prosecution inarriage of the respondent aad petttioner N0, 1 solenuuzed wifhiu the territorial jurisdiction of Duxg, petitioner No, 1 used to conunit cruelty withia the territorial jurisdiction of fhe Durg. Prcseat respondent is residing wifhia fhe temtorial jurisdictiou of Dut^. These facts are sufiBcient for taking cognizance of the case by fhc Coiut situated wittun the territorial jurisdiction of District Dui^;, Court below has not comiuitted any iUegality warrautiug any iaterfereace ia terms of Sectiou 482 of the Code. Consequently, fhis petition is Uable to be disinissed and it is hereby dismissed. gjy. T.P. Sharma Judge