S. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 25.4.2007, 27.8.2007 and 17.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the petitions respectively. It has further been prayed that Complaint Case No. 909 of 2007 registered under Section 403/406/504/506/507/34, I.P.C. read with Section 6, Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, contained in Anenxure-6 to the petitions respectively, be also quashed.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the grandparents, petitioners No. 3 and 4 are father and mother, petitioner No. 5 is uncle of husband of opposite party No. 1, petitioner No. 6 is husband of opposite party No. 1 and petitioner No. 7 is cousin sister of husband of opposite party No. 1. Petitioner No. 6 and opposite party No. 1 were married on 19.2.2006 at Ahmedabad according to the Hindu Rites and Religion. According to the opposite party No. 1, a huge amount of Rs. 16 lakhs was spent on the marriage and various articles annexed as Annexure-A to the complaint were also given. THE petitioners after marriage started harassing the opposite party No. 1 for demand of dowry and demanded an Octiva Car and Rs. 50,000 cash from her and forced her to get it from her parents. THE complainant refused to meet the demand on the ground that her parents were not in a position to fulfil the demand. THE maid-servant was also relieved with a view to harass the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 was doing M.B.A. course at the time of her marriage from Lucknow University, but in spite of that she was made to do all household work. She tried to satisfy her in-laws and husband, but she was always abused and mentally tortured. Opposite party No. 1 was not permitted to use her goods for personal use and they were used by the accused persons. When the dowry demand was not fulfilled by the parents of opposite party No. 1, then petitioner No. 6 got the reservation ticket of complainant to Delhi from his credit card and forcibly boarded her in the train on 25.11.2006 and thereafter father of the complainant went from Lucknow to Delhi to bring her back to her parental house. THE accused did not return the stridhan to opposite party No. 1 and send her to Lucknow with only Rs. 500. THE keys of locker was also taken away from her. THE goods and articles mentioned as Annexure-A to the complaint were the personal property of opposite party No. 1 and she is legally authorised to possess them. THE complainant after coming to her parental house requested petitioners No. 1 to 7 on 7.1.2007 on phone to return her stridhan, but they refused the same and threatened the complainant of dire consequences. It was also stated that they will sell all the articles if she again demands stridhan. Opposite party No. 1 again requested for return of stridhan on 4.2.2007, but she was again threatened on phone and told that they will get her killed from hired criminal. On the aforesaid allegations the complaint has been filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in the petitions and it has been stated that opposite party No. 1 was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by the petitioners by demand of dowry and having no option an F.I.R. was lodged on 28.12.2006 against petitioners No. 3, 4 and 6. It has further been stated that opposite party No. 1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial house forcibly on 25.11.2006 and she was forced to board the train providing her a valid ticket upto Delhi with only Rs. 500 cash and the dress which she was wearing and when she reached to Delhi she informed her father, who reached Delhi and brought her back to Lucknow. It has also been stated that petitioners were habitual of demanding dowry, which was every time fulfilled by father of opposite party No. 1, but the huge demand of buying a car worth Rs. 12 lakhs could not be fulfilled by the father of the opposite party No. 1 as he was not having financial resources to that extent. The F.I.R. lodged on 28.12.2006 at Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, Lucknow was subject-matter of challenge before the Gujarat High Court and by means of order dated 9.2.2007 an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2908 of 2007. The Apex Court while allowing special leave petition observed that the investigation should not have been stayed by the High Court and the interim order dated 9.2.2007 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Gujarat High Court for deciding the dispute on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the said order. The matter is engaging the attention of the Gujarat High Court in regard to the proceedings and a charge-sheet has been filed in pursuance to the F.I.R. The complaint has been filed for return of stridhan for which the opposite party No. 1 is entitled under law. The petitioners have no right to retain the stridhan, which is the personal property of the opposite party No. 1. The statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. go to indicate that the articles, which have been given in the form of stridhan to the petitioners have not been returned in spite of the demand being made. The demand has been made from Lucknow and, therefore, the cause of action has accrued at Lucknow and Section 181 (4), Cr. P.C. also provides that in case of criminal breach of trust the complaint would be maintainable even where the property is to be returned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow and, therefore, the power to entertain the complaint does not vest with the Magistrate at Lucknow. He has also submitted that the marriage has taken place at Ahmedabad and the articles have been given at Ahmedabad and merely residence of opposite party No. 1 at Lucknow will not create any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It has further been submitted that the Gujarat High Court is already seized of the matter in regard to jurisdiction and no judgment has been rendered in this regard up till now ; hence no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow and as such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following cases : Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1997 SC 2465 ; Y. Abraham and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 SCC 100 : 2005 (1) ACR 577 (SC) and Manish Ratan and others v. State of M. P. and others, (2007) 1 SCC 262 : 2007 (2) ACR 1451 (SC). Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand has submitted that demand for return of stridhan has been raised from Lucknow, therefore, the cause of action has accrued at Lucknow. Section 184, Cr. P.C. also gives jurisdiction to the Magistrate to proceed in the matter where the offence is a continuing offence or where the offence has been committed partly in one local area and in the other area, then the offence can be inquired into or tried by the Court that having jurisdiction on any such local area. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has also relied upon the provisions of Section 460 (e), Cr. P.C. to contend that the proceedings will not vitiate even if the Magistrate is not powered by law to do the things stated in the aforesaid section. Clause (e) of Section 460, Cr. P.C. provides to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190, Cr. P.C. Submission is that the accused persons can move a discharge application at the time of framing of charges in case the charge is not made out against them. The trial court has committed no illegality in entertaining the complaint and the order passed by the court below is perfectly valid in law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, (1985) 2 SCC 370 ; Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others, 1999 (8) SCC 686 : 1999 (3) ACR 2161 (SC) and G. V. Rao v. L. H. V. Prasad and others, 2000 Cr LJ 3487 : 2000 (1) ACR 766 (SC).;