1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1790 /2010 (1.Raashankar Singh Abherasingh Bhardwaj and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2011. Heard Ms. Sarita G Hujur, learned Adv.h/for Mr S I Khan for the applicants and Mr D.M.Kale, learned APP for the respondent no.1. This application is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of process passed by the learned 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur dated 3.6.2010 in Summary Case No.3050/2010 whereby the learned trial Magistrate, after examining testimony of witness - Ravindra Singh upon hearing Advocate representing the complainant found that there was prima facie sufficient cause to proceed against the accused. Thus, process was issued for an offence punishable under section 500 IPC. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the marriage between the son of the applicant and daughter of respondent no.2 was dissolved mutually in the Family Court, Mumbai some time in May, 2009. Thereafter, on 6th February 2010, 2 wife of the respondent no.2 issued a legal notice through Advocate Rajendra Gupta of Seoni (MP) to applicants. Ashwini Chaurasiya of Seoni gave a reply to the notice. However, the respondent no.2 filed Criminal Compliant No.3050/2010 in the Court of 9th JMFC Nagpur, under section 500 IPC. It is the contention of the applicants that in view of Section 178 of the Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate who issued the process, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to issue the process since the correspondence between the parties occurred at Seoni (MP). The learned Advocate for the applicants made a reference to the ruling in Y.Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 in order to argue that JMFC Nagpur ought not to have issued process for want of jurisdiction. Learned APP opposed these contentions and argued that the complainant resided at Nagpur and his specific address has been mentioned in title of the Criminal Complaint. Even regarding correspondence between the parties, it is contended that the notice which was issued by Advocate at Seoni (MP) also mentioned residence of his client “Mrs. Anuradha Thakur, Plot No. 3 24 Gorle Layout 2nd Bus Stop, Nagpur (Maharashtra). Under these circumstances, since the complainant had a residence at Nagpur, the complaint could have been entertained by the learned Magistrate concerned. Be that as it may, the application is directed against an order by which the process was issued by learned 9th JMFC Nagpur. It is open for the applicant to approach before the Magistrate concerned and to raise the contention by filing an appropriate application which may be decided by the learned trial Magistrate concerned in accordance with law, If such an objection is raised as to territorial jurisdiction about the place of trial. That being so, no interference is required in the order for mere issuance of process challenged by this application. For the above reasons, therefore, the application is rejected. JUDGE sahare