(1.) This application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 18-9-2001 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Baripada in G.R. Case No. 214 of 1999 framing charge for commission of offences under Ss. 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Penal Code read with Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant, Puja Shaw. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the allegation that the marriage of the informant with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 24-8-1996 at Bhubaneswar and at the time of marriage a part of the dowry demanded had been paid and it was also agreed for payment of the balance dowry at a later stage. On perusal of the F.I.R. it also appears that due to non-payment of the dowry demanded by the petitioner No. 1 and the family members of petitioner No. 1, the informant was subjected to torture at Bhubaneswar, Berhampur as well as at Oman where the petitioner No. 1 was serving. The F.I.R. describes in detail the manner in which the informant was subjected to physical and mental torture due to non-fulfilment of dowry at the above places. Accordingly, on the basis of such allegations the case was registered for commission of offences under Ss. 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Penal Code read with S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of the offences mentioned above and in the impugned order charge has been framed in respect of the above offences.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that the learned J.M.F.C., Baripada has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the allegations of the alleged demand of dowry, torture having taken place at Bhubaneswar, Berhampur and Oman, the learned Magistrate at Baripada lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of K. S. Vishwanath v. State of Orissa, reported in (2001) 20 OCR 378. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the informant opposite party No. 2 submitted that the said question was raised before the learned S.D.J.M. at the time of framing of charge and it was considered and decided in favour of the informant with reasons and, therefore, there is no justification for this Court to reconsider the same question again in exercise of the powers under S. 482, Cr. P.C.