The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a satisfactory and sufficient inquiry by the Magistrate in cases involving accused persons residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, and the limitation for taking cognizance of offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Rule. Heard forthwith finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by J.M.F.C. Kamptee in Criminal Complaint Case No. 660 of 2007 issuing process in a complaint made under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against the applicants, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. In support of writ petition, Mr.Patwardhan learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the complainant/respondent no.2-wife had lodged first information report with the police station against her husband and other petitioners who are the father, mother, brother and brother's wife and petitioner no.1. Police carried out investigation in Crime No. 196 of 2004 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after thorough investigation police found that case was made out only against petitioner no.1 and not other family members of the petitioner no.1, i.e. petitioners 2 to 4. and therefore chargesheet was filed only against petitioner no.1. Thereafter the complainant/respondent no.2-wife filed private criminal complaint case No. 660 of 2007 under Section 498A read with Section 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of J.M.F.C. Kamptee who issued process under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. According to Mr.Patwardhan, respondent no.2-wife has decided to put the entire family to harassment and that is why she has filed false criminal complaint against all the family members and that is clearly mala fide and abuse of process of law. Inviting my attention to the amended provisions of Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure he argued that the said amendment came into force with effect from 23.6.2006 and the complaint case was filed by respondent no.2 on 15.12.2007. He argued that the petitioners reside at Hinganghat, i.e. beyond the territorial jurisdiction of J.M.F.C. Kamptee and therefore the said Court could not have issued process without holding enquiry contemplated by the said amended provision of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the impugned order clearly shows that the trial court did not know about this amended provision and hence the order issuing process is bad in law.

4. He then argued inviting my attention to the dates that the last incident of ill-treatment even according to the complainant is alleged to have taken place on 19.7.2004 and it is not in dispute that thereafter there is no single allegation about the ill-treatment or the facts constituted any offence. In view of the fact that the trial Court took cognizance of offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code only, the limitation of three years provided by law expired on 19.7.2007 as the complaint came to be filed on 15.12.2007 and there was no occasion for the trial Court to exercise power under Section 473 of Code of Criminal Procedure as in the private complaint case filed by respondent no.2 she did not file any application for condonation of delay. The complaint was thus clearly barred by limitation and looking to the intention of respondent no.2, who is working as a teacher in a school as against her husband being unemployed, and in the light of the above facts, the complaint case filed by her is clearly malafide and the order issuing process deserves to be quashed and set aside. He relied on the following decisions –

(i) 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 213 – Sunil s/o Bhaskarrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra

(ii) 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 623 – Captain Lance Irwin Lobo v. Ismail D'Souza @ Angelo Ismail D'Souza

(iii) AIR 1963 SC 1430 – Chandra Deo Singh v . Prokash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose

(iv) AIR 2007 SC 2774 – Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan.

5. Per contra, Mr.Gandhi learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that police having failed to file the chargesheet aga