SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for challenging the order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in revision, affirming the order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metro in connection with FIR No.26/2010 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and the matter was transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District for trial of the criminal case which has been registered as Criminal Original Case No.174/2011.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 Smt. Hoor filed a complaint against the petitioners in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur alleging inter alia that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner No.1 Shri Roofi Nawaz at the village Ozhar, District Nasik. Her father gave wholesome dowry articles and cash in the marriage. After two days of the marriage, all of a sudden, behaviour of her husband and in-laws changed towards her. She was ignored and insulting taunts were passed at her owing to her dark complexion. She was stigmatised by saying that a fair match was being sought for Roofi Nawaz, but misfortune had fallen on them as the complainant was of dark complexion. The accused started finding trivial flaws in her work. She was harassed and humiliated and was pressurised to demand cash and a flat from her father. Her husband went abroad in relation to his work. Whenever, the complainant called him, she was abused. On 19.09.2009, the complainant left her matrimonial home and came to Jodhpur where, her father was posted. She called her in-laws from Jodhpur and requested them to return her streedhan articles but they bluntly refused and instead, demanded a car and a bungalow from her. She further alleged that the accused hatched a conspiracy with each other and a totally fake Talaknama fraudulently procured from Rackam's, Grand Cayman Island was sent to her through e-mail. The complaint submitted by the respondent No.2 was forwarded to Mahila Thana, Jodhpur where, FIR No.218/2009 was registered and investigation commenced. The police, after investigation, came to a conclusion that no part of the cause of action pertaining to the alleged offences took place within the Jodhpur district and as a matter of fact, the parties married and resided together at the village Ozhar, District Nasik and had never interacted at Jodhpur. Thereupon, a negative final report on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was submitted by the I.O. in the court concerned. The complainant, upon being notified of the Negative Report, filed a protest petition and got herself and her witnesses examined under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thereupon, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the order of cognizance dated 14.03.2011 and summoned the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. While considering the aspect of jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate observed that in the enquiry under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 the complainant and her witnesses affirmatively stated that while the lady was living at Jodhpur, the accused often called her on phone and abused her and also conveyed their illegal demands to her at Jodhpur and thus, a part of cause of action pertaining to the offences alleged could be considered as having occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Jodhpur. With this conclusion, the learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the protest petition and took cognizance against the accused petitioners in the above terms. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate was unsuccessfully challenged by the accused in revision which was dismissed by order dated 12.04.2013. Hence, this misc. petition.
(3.) During the pendency of the misc. petition, this Court attempted to mediate between the parties. On 10.01.2018, Shri H.M. Saraswat, learned counsel representing the petitioners, conveyed to this Court that the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has remarried. On this statement of Shri Saraswat, this Court directed the learned counsel representing the complainant to keep her client present in the Court on the next date. The matter was taken up on 22.02.2018 on which date, Shri Dinesh Ojha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant and apprised the Court that his client has remarried and is living abroad and hence, she is unable to come down to Jodhpur. He, upon being instructed, apprised the Court that the only surviving grievance of the complainant as against the accused as on date is that her streedhan articles are still lying in matrimonial home at the village Ozhar, District Nasik and that the same should be brought down to Jodhpur and returned to her. Shri Saraswat, learned counsel representing the accused petitioners emphatically stated that it was the complainant who deserted the matrimonial home and she is always free to approach the petitioners' house and take whatever articles of her which may be still lying there. However, Shri Ojha persisted with the submission that the articles should be brought to Jodhpur and then only, the complainant would consider the offer of compromise. Shri Saraswat also made an alternative offer that if at all, the complainant's allegation regarding retention of her dowry articles is accepted as per the list supplied then the current value thereof would not exceed beyond Rs. 2,00,000/- as a fair offer of compensating her, and the accused are ready to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- which would more than cover the value of the stridhan articles claimed by the complainant. However, Shri Ojha contacted his client and apprised the Court that she is not willing to accept the said offer. Thus, the matter was heard on merits.;