Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - (1.) The instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1307 of 2013, pending in the court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (A.P.), Lucknow, arising out of Case Crime No.101 of 2012, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow and other consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of chargesheet dated 27.6.2013 including the cognizance taken by the Magistrate and summoning the petitioner in the aforesaid case including warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner on 22.8.2013.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) The petitioner has degree of B.S. and M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and MBA from IIM, Bangalore. The petitioner was previously working with Oracle and Merrill Lynch and presently working as Vice President in D.V.B. Bank in Rotterdam (Holland). The father of petitioner is a Marine Engineer from D.M.E.T. and the mother Mrs. Renu Mathur is M. Sc. Maths from Hindu College, Delhi University. The mother and father of petitioner together have started a business of Ship Manning in 1989 and are running the same since then. (ii) After wedding petitioner moved to Mumbai along with opposite party no.2, where a wedding reception was held, following which, couple went on a two week honeymoon to Italy and Dubai. After their return, couple resided in Mumbai for five months with the parents of petitioner. At that time petitioner was employed with Merrill Lynch in Mumbai Office. On 03.09.2008, petitioner took opposite party no.2 (Lavangika Mathur) on a month long work relating trip to New York. On 09.10.2008, couple moved to Hong Kong, due to petitioner's work returned back on 06.04.2009. (iii) In the time between April, 2009 to September, 2010 petitioner and opposite party no.2 resided in Mumbai and during this period petitioner was working with his father in Shipping business. During this period opposite party no.2 made several trips to Dubai to meet her parents. (iv) On 15.09.2010 petitioner moved to Netherlands along with opposite party no.2 as petitioner got a job with D.V.B. Bank SE. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 visited several European Cities and countries over the weekends. On 04.01.2012, a son Aarash was born in Dubai and petitioner and opposite party no.2 were present in Dubai on this joyous occasion. (v) Opposite party no.2 came back to Netherlands on 14.03.2012 with her son and her parents. Parents of petitioner also visited Netherlands and stayed there for a few weeks. In July, 2012, when petitioner was on vacation in Switzerland with opposite party no.2, some misunderstanding took place between them. Opposite party no.2 left for Dubai on 22.7.2012 with son Aarash. (vi) A complaint was lodged against the petitioner including his mother, father and other relatives mentioning therein that the petitioner has tortured the opposite party no.2 for want of dowry and is also not handing over his Streedhan to opposite party no.2. On the basis of the said allegations made in the complaint, an FIR was lodged on 22.09.2012 as case crime no. 101 of 2012, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow. (vii) After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner , his mother, namely Smt. Renu Mathur and father Anil Mohan Mathur. The final report was submitted against co-accused Umesh Mathur (cousin father-in-law), Atish Mathur (brother-in-law) and Tarun Mathur (brother-in-law). In the FIR, six persons were named but the police has submitted the chargesheet only against three persons as mentioned above. (viii) The opposite party no.2 apart from aforesaid FIR has also filed another criminal complaint case no. 1122 of 2013 (Smt. Lavingka Mathur Vs. Adeep Mathur and others) on 07.02.2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against petitioner and two other co-accused (mother and father of the petitioner),under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. (ix) The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.10458 of 2012 (M/B) (Adeep Anil Mathur and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) for quashing the first information report before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.12.2012 stayed the arrest of the petitioner in case crime no.101 of 2012, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow and directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the registry of this Court. Vide order dated 28.01.2013, the matter was referred to mediation centre of this Court. As per report of mediation centre of this Court dated 12.02.2013, mediation between the parties has been failed and thereafter the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. (x) The petitioner has filed divorce petition at Netherlands (Holland). A divorce degree has been granted in favour of petitioner.
(3.) Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that opposite party no.2 herself is not the resident of Lucknow, she is residing with her parents in Dubai and is a permanent resident of Dubai. He further contended that no cause of action arose in Lucknow as such cognizance taken by the Magistrate is in clear violation of provisions contained in sections 177 to 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') provides the place of enquiry or tiral. He stated that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was ever visited Lucknow in connection with demand of dowry or have physically and mentally tortured the opposite party no.2 at Lucknow, as such, no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction at district Lucknow.;