..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1112 OF 2008 Munnalal Basanta Sharma and 3 Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Ms.Bharati Mahant, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. Criminal Complaint No.112/SW/2006 has been filed against the petitioners in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 498-A, 406, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. The said complaint has been filed by the daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos.1 & 2. The petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are the sons of petitioner No.1. ..(2).. 3. The petitioners have filed an application before the learned Magistrate stating therein that as all the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, the learned Magistrate at Andheri had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application observing that he did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, the complaint be returned to the complainant for filing before the proper Court. The said order came to be challenged by the complainant before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court by order dated 5th April, 2008 set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and sent the matter back to the concerned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, this Petition has been preferred. 4. I have perused the complaint. No doubt the major part of the complaint consists of events which occurred at Bharatpur in Rajasthan. However, the averments in paragraph No.12 of the complaint speak about events which took place in Mumbai. In ..(3).. paragraph No.12 of the complaint, it is stated as under : "it had become impossible for me to reside with the accused at Bharatpur, Rajasthan as all the accused were at all the times, harassing and demanding to bring the money back which I got transferred to my account in Mumbai. Hence I requested my father to take me back to Mumbai and as such, on 22nd May, 2006 my father brought me and my child to Mumbai and at present I and my child are residing at the above address. Except my 4 sarees and my baby’s clothes, I did not bring anything with me. All my articles, including gold ornaments and jewellery, are still with the accused, as the accused refused to part with the same. I am repeatedly receiving threats from the accused, calling upon me to return to Bharatpur with the money, which I got transferred to my account in Mumbai and the accused are also demanding a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for allowing me an entry in the matrimonial house, failing which, the accused would kill me and they would never allow me to live in the ..(4).. matrimonial house at Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The accused are giving threats on telephone and also sending threatening messages with the messengers, and my life and that of my parents, is in danger, as the accused have become desperate and they may do any bodily harm to me and my parents, in order to claim all the properties and money of my deceased husband including the investments made by him." 5. This averments in paragraph No.12 of the complaint which are reflected above show that threats were given to the complainant by the accused on telephone as well as through messengers when she was staying at Mumbai. These averments show the harassment by the accused persons to the complainant when she was residing in Mumbai. The events which the complainant has stated in paragraph No.12 have taken place in Mumbai and hence the Court at Mumbai would have jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the offence. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction and sending the matter back to the Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law is perfectly just and legal. No ..(5).. interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)