SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
(2.) This application has been filed praying to quash the order dated 17.01.2017 in Complaint Case No. 543 of 2010 (Rama Shankar v. Jeetendra Kumar and others) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad whereby the discharge application of the applicants under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
(3.) Submissions of learned counsel for the applicants are as under: (i) The applicants are residing at Delhi. The entire alleged offence took place at Delhi. Therefore, the court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to try the case. (ii) No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and nanad of the sister of the opposite party No. 2. He refers to the statement of the victim Seema Jaiswal filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the application to submit that she has not even named the applicants herein for the allegation of dowry or any other allegation. The entire allegation has been levelled specifically against the husband namely Sri Jeetendra. (iii) The complaint as well as the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. shows that no specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein rather specific allegations are only against the accused Jeetendra, who is husband. (iv) Offence under Section 498A is not a continuing offence and, therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation of dowry against the applicants herein within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad, the court below was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the charges are groundless. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, (2007) 1 SCC 262 (para-12) is relied. ;