The territorial jurisdiction for trying a dowry demand case is determined by the place where the demand was made and received, even if neither the accused nor the complainant resides within that jurisdiction.

DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- Respondent No. 1 C. R. Bansi, who is the father of Alka has filed the present complaint under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Bombay. Before filing this complaint necessary sanction from the State Government was also obtained.

2. It appears from the record that the accused-petitioner filed an application dated 6th October, 1978 raising a contention that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case as the accused and the complainant were residing out side the jurisdiction of that Court. A contention was also raised that the complaint was barred by law of limitation and hence it was liable to be dismissed. These were the only contentious raised before the trial court. At this stage it is conceded by the learned Counsel that the complaint was filed within the period prescribed.

3. After hearing both sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation i. e. one year. He further found that the copy of the letter by which dowry was demanded shows that it was written from Bombay-31 and in view of the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Magistrate further found that the local area of Bombay-31 comes within the jurisdiction of his Court and in view of this he dismissed the said application. It is this order which is challenged before us in this Criminal Application.

4. Shri Satpute, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the alleged letter demanding dowry was written and posted from Wadala where the accused resides and the said letter was received at Agartala by the brother of the accused. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it will be the Agartala Court, which will have jurisdiction to try the complaint. He further contended that the complainant is a resident of Andheri and, therefore, in any case, it will be the Andheri Court which will have jurisdiction and in no case the present Metropolitan Magistrate at Dadar could have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. He also contended that even on merits, no prim a facie case is made out, because the brother of the accused at Agartala had no authority or power to demand dowry for and on behalf of the accused. It is pertinent to note that, such contentions were not raised before the trial Court.

5. So far as the first contention based on the challenge to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, in our opinion there is no substance in the said contention. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. K. F. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196 : (1957 Cri LJ 322), the venue of enquiry or trial of a case is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge-sheet and unless the facts therein are positively disproved, ordinarily the Court, where the charge-sheet or complaint is filed, has to proceed with it, except where action has to be taken under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code (old Code). From the averments made in the complaint, it is quite clear that it is the case of the complainant that he received a letter from P. M. Aher his son-in-law and brother of the accused from Agartala. The said letter is dated 14th April, 1977 and was written to Shri P. M. Aher by the accused himself, in his own handwriting from Bombay demanding the dowry of Rs. 30,000/- from him and also transfer of the fields in the name of his son-in-law or father in marriage, with Alka, complainant's daughter.

6. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant had made a reference as to how the marriage was being settled and he was busy with making preparations for the marriage. Thus from the averments made in the complaint, it is quite clear that the letter was written by the accused from Bombay on 14th April, 1977. It is not disputed before us that the