1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The applicants have filed the present application for quashing and setting aside CR. No. 126/2006 registered with Sahada Police Station and charge sheet No. 9 of 2007 filed in RCC No. 14/2007 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Sahada. The applicants have in the alternative prayed for transfer of proceedings to the learned J.M.F.C. Nashik Road, Nashik.

3. An FIR was filed at the instance of the respondent No. 1 alleging therein that the applicants had physically and mentally ill treated her on account of unlawful demand of dowry and thereby committed an offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. It appears that on completion of investigation the charge sheet came to be filed before the learned J.M.F.C. In the said proceedings, an application came to be filed by the present applicants for transfer of the proceedings to the Court of J.M.F.C. at Nashik. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the learned J.M.F.C. has no powers to transfer the proceedings. Subsequently the present application has been filed.

4. Mr. Salunkhe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that from the perusal of FIR, it would reveal that even according to the complainant the entire instances have taken place within the jurisdiction of the court at Nashik and therefore it is only the court at Nashik which will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He further submits that nothing has taken place at Sahada, so as to invest the court at Sahada with the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Ratan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 262].

5. Ms. Joshi the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent no. 1 – complainant was required to stay in her parents house as her husband had himself taken her there. It is therefore submitted that since the complainant was required to stay with her parents as a consequence of ill treatment on account of demand of dowry, the court at Sahada had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 relied on the judgments in the cases of (1) Syed Khaja Mohiuddin vs. State of A.P. [I(2006)DMC 32], (2) Smt. Suman Upadhyay and others vs. State of U.P. and others [1999 Cri.L.J. 4657], (3) Vijai Ratan Sharma and others vs. State of U.P and another [1988 Cri.L.J. 1581], (4) Bina Dey and others vs. Pratibha Dey (Baidya) 2003 Cri. L.J. 3618] and (5) Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Vedi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [II (2009)DMC 779].

7. Looking into the important question as to whether the court at the place where the complainant – wife resides will have a jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not, Mr. Ashok Mundargi the learned senior counsel was requested to assist the court in the matter and act as amicus curiae. Mr. Mundargi graciously agreed to do so. I must place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Mundargi, the learned senior counsel. Taking the court through various provisions of Sections 126, 182, 183, 179, the learned senior counsel submits that wherever the legislature intended that the court other than the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed will have a jurisdiction to enquire into the said offence, the legislature has so specifically provided. He submits that in so far as offence under Section 498-A is concerned, it has not been provided by the legislature that it will be enquired into at any other place other than where the offence has taken place. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. [(2004)8 SCC 100], the learned counsel submits that offence under Section 498-A is not a continuous offence. The courts at the place at which the complainant resides i.e. her parents’ place will ha