( 1 ) THIS petition undersection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) seeks to quash the proceedings and also the order dated 23. 6. 1995 passed by die learned M. M. , Delhi and order dated 27. 8. 96 passed by the learned A. S. J. in revision on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Smt. Poonam Sharma had lodged a complaint dated 30. 7. 1992 with the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi (for short CAW ). On the said complaint being forwarded by the latter FIR No. 480/92 under Section 406, Indian Penal Code was registered at P. S. Vikas Puri, New Delhi. After completing investigation, charge-sheet under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code was submitted against all the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. The learned M. M. took cognizance and summoned the petitioners-accused. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 respectively are die husband, the mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), father-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant. After hearing the parties learned M. M. vide order dated 23. 6. 1995 held that the charges undersections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code were made out against the petitioners. In revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. against that order the learned A. S. J. partly allowed die revision petition vide his order dated 27. 8. 1996, holding that offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code was not made out butoffenceundersections498-A/34,ipconly was made out against all the petitioners. One of the objections taken before die learned A. S. J. was that die Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the offences alleged. This objection has been overruled by die learned A. S. J. The petitioner-husband had also filed petition for divorce before the Court of District Judge ,dharamshala. That petition was allowe dand a decree of dissolution of marriage was passed on 4. 8. 1994. That decree has been upheld in appeal by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 25. 4. 1995.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions.

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, that Courts at Delhi has got no territorial jurisdiction on die allegations made in the complaint as die alleged acts of cruelty had taken place at Village Jawali, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh where the marriage had taken place and parties had lived together after the marriage. Secondly, the allegations made in the complaint are false, malafide and misconceived and no notice thereto should have taken in the facts and circumstances. In any case die matter and the controversy involved has now been adjudicated and decided by the Civil Court who has passed a decree of divorce and die findings of that Court are binding on the Criminal Court.

( 5 ) THESE contentions have been disputed by the learned Counsel for the State. He has contended that the act of cruelty has also taken place at Delhi where demand for sale and share in sale proceeds of die properties left by die father of the complainant in respect of share of the complainant has been made. He has also contended that die decree of Civil Court has no relevance in the facts and circumstances.

( 6 ) THE wife-complainant in her complaint dated 30. 7. 1992 had alleged that her marriage with Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 1 had taken place on 17. 2. 1991 and for next 15 to 20 days she lived in the matrimonial home in die normal way, when her brother had brought her to Delhi as she had to take 12th class examination. Her husband had also visited her parents house in Delhi at that time and as desired by him by efforts made by members of her family he got employment in a factory at Gurgaon when he had stayed at her parents house; but in the meantime, her brodier-in-law (Jeth) took her to die matrimonial home. Her husband after sometime left the job and he joined her in his village. lt is alleged that ther after the husb and and