IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 609 of 2010 1. Rajni Devi W/o Prem Chand 2. Jai Prakash S/o Prem Chand (In Jail) Both R/o C-235, Raghubir Nagar, Rajauri Garden, P.S. Khayala, New Delhi. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Leelawati W/o Shyam Vraksh R/o H.No. 83, Gali No. 6, Veer Bhadra Magar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) 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 2 proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2010, State Vs. Jai Prakash and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the court at Rishikesh has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter as death of the deceased has taken place in Delhi. Attention of this Court is drawn to the principle of law laid down in Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2004 Cri. L.J. 4180, and Rajendra Karanwal and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 Cri. L.J. 3913. None of the above mentioned cases relate to the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that ‘ordinarily a case shall be tried within whose local jurisdiction it was committed’. In the first information report of the present case it is alleged that the victim was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is not mentioned in the first information report that it was done at Delhi only. Suicide note (copy Annexure –3 to the petition) said to have been recovered from the possession of the deceased, also does not disclose that the place of cruelty was at Delhi only and not at Rishikesh. 3 4) In the above circumstances, considering the nature of the offence and facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 01, 2010. H. Negi 4