IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 334 of 2007 1. Shahid Hussain S/o Sri Amir Hussain 2. Smt. Anisha W/o Sri Amir Hussain Both R/o Mohalla Najesarai, P.S. Afzalgarh, District Bijnor (U.P.). ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Shahin W/o Sri Shahid Hussain D/o Sri Rafeeq Ahmad R/o Garoorh Bazar, Patti B. Katyyur, Police Station Baijnath, Tehsil Garoorh District Bageshwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the respondent State. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 88 of 2007; Smt. Shahin Vs. Shahid Hussain and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of 2 the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No. 2 Shahin, resident of Tehsil Garud, District Bageshwar got married on 4th of June 1999 to petitioner No. 1 Shahid Hussain. Two children were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged by respondent No. 2 / complainant Shahin that her husband Shahid Hussain (petitioner No. 1) and her mother-in-law Anisha (petitioner No. 2) used to demand dowry from her and they subjected her to cruelty. It is also alleged in the criminal complaint that she was assaulted with knife and forced to leave her matrimonial house. In her statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that her father is a blind man, and she is made to live with him with her two children. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Bhura Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2008 CRL. L.J. 3494 and Dr. Sarojini Arawattigi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 CRL. L.J. 126, and it is argued that the court at Bageshwar has no territorial 3 jurisdiction as the incident of harassment is said to have taken place in Sherkot (District Bijnor, U.P.). 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that part of cause of action has arisen at Garud (District Bageshwar), and as such, the court at Bageshwar has also got jurisdiction, in the matter. In Para 5 of the criminal complaint it is alleged that after the complainant came to her parental house, she was given threat over phone by the accused, and it is alleged that she and her relations on parental side would be killed by sending Goondas there. This fact alleged in the criminal complaint shows that there was part of cause of action, alleged to have been taken place in District Bageshwar, also. Learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No. 2 further submitted that after getting the impugned criminal proceedings stayed, the petitioner No. 1 has got remarried, after pronouncing ‘TALAQ’, and rendered the complainant / respondent No. 2 helpless. 6) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 7) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, 4 their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. It is left open to the petitioners to raise the plea of territorial jurisdiction before the trial court. Interim order dated 31.05.2007, passed by this Court, stands automatically vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 464 of 2007 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 24, 2010. H. Negi 5