IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Sanjay Sawaie & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: July 13, 2010 Sri Tapan Singh i/b Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order-dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Special J.M., Tehri Garhwal and to quash the proceedings in Case No.473/2005, Smt. Shikha Vs. Sanjay Sawai & others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. No one appears for respondent no.2, though the service is sufficient and power has also been filed by Mr. Vipul Painuli, Advocate. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Smt. Shikha lodged a complaint with the averments that she got married with petitioner no.1-Sanjay Sawai on 11.5.2005 and in the marriage, her parents given dowry as per their status. Petitioners 2 to 8, who are relatives of petitioner no.1, have also attended the marriage party. After the marriage, all the petitioners have come in the house of petitioner no.1 at Delhi and they have also stated for some days in the house of petitioner no.1. After 2-3 days, when the petitioners and respondent no.2 reached at 2 Delhi, all the petitioners demanded a motorcycle and Rs.4.00 lac in cash at Delhi. Respondent no.2 had told that the economic condition of her parents is not so good that they can given the above-said articles demanded by them, on this she was threatened to her life. The above said incident was informed by respondent no.2 to her father and then her father also came at Delhi and has also stated to the petitioners that he is not in a position to pay the above said items in dowry. When the father of respondent no2. came back at his house at Tehri, then the petitioners again started harassing her for the demanding dowry and this was also informed by the respondent no.2 to her father on telephone and through letter from Delhi. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 was ousted from the house by the petitioners. With these allegations, the complaint was moved on 13.12.2005. For the support of her complaint, the complainant got herself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced Ami Chand and Ravi Shanker u/s 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the above-said evidence, the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 3.1.2006 proceeded to summon the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 498-A/ 504/506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a bare reading of the contents of the complaint itself, it reveals that no part of alleged offence has been committed within the territory of Uttarakhand. It is further pointed out that the entire alleged incident relates to Delhi. Attention of this Court is drawn to Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., which provides as under:- “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 3 178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” I am in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cause of action arose in State of Uttarakhand. Whatever the allegations were made in the complaint or in the statements recorded u/s 200 or 202 Cr.P.C., they were relating with a demand made at Delhi at the house of petitioner no.1. There is no demand or harassment whether physical or mental, as committed by the petitioners to the respondent no.2 within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand. Hence, as per Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C., this complaint is not maintainable in the State of Uttarakhand, as no cause of action arise in this State. Besides above, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134 and in the case of Bhura Ram & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & another reported in III (2008) SLT 712, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the fact that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, deserves to be allowed. 4 For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal as well as the proceedings pending before that court in Case No.473 of 2005, Smt. Shikha Vs. Sanjay Sawai & others, are quashed with the observation that the complainant (respondent no.2) may make a complaint regarding her grievances, before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. Interim order dated 23.3.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 13, 2010 Rdang