( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code by the husband, his parents, brother and sister-in-law, is directed against proceedings in a complaint filed by the wife s father against them for offences "under Section 2 and 3" of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversing in revision the order of the trial court by which the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the "offences" alleged were not committed at Delhi, and had, if at all, been committed at Jullundur, and the Delhi Court, therefore, had nojurisdiction to entertain or tiy the complaint.

( 2 ) KAMLESH and Madan Lal, the first petitioner herein, were married at Delhi. Their marital life had apparently been unhappy, either because of persistent demand for gifts from the wife s in-laws, as alleged by one party, or because of incompatibility and other reasons, as is the contention of the other. Be that as it may, on or before October 1, 1982, Madan Lal, the husband filed proceedings in a Jullundur Court, which is the situs of the matrimonial home, for a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground of cruelty, based on allegations that the wife withdrew from the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and carried with her the entire jewellery and costly clothes and had been committing "grave acts of cruelty" during the period she lived with the husband. It was further alleged that with a view to forestall any action of restoration of jewellery, which she had carried, she set up a "false story of a theft" in the house of her father and lodged a false first information report at a local police station in Delhi based on a fake theft. It is not clear as to when the wife was served with the process of the Jullundur Court. The complaint, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, was, however, filed by the wife s father Amar Nath, in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on of about October 30, 1982. Besides the husband, his parents, his brother and the brother s wife were impleaded as accused persons. According to the complaint, which is rather clumsily drawn, "all the five accused persons are greedy persons and since inception of relationship either of them used to make in certain manners dowry demands absolutely undue". It was further alleged in para (4) that "at the time of marriage and on other occasions before marriage Sh. Babu Lal accused demanded one thing or the other and undue cash and to save his position in his. social life, he did expenses beyond his capacity in the marriage and paid cash, articles, ornaments, etc. etc. supply to satisfy his desires". The complaint proceeds to make further allegations of undue demands from the wife from time to time on different occasions at Jullundur and it is claimed that the husband has been able "to collect about Rs. 20000. 00 from the complainant by demanding dowry from complainant absolutely undue. " The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance of the complaint, examined the father of the wife, as well as the wife. In the course of his statement the father slated that "at the time of finalization of the marriage accused No. 1 to 5 represented that they would not seek any dowry but soon after the solemnization of the marriage, they started making demands I had tried to fulfil the demands of the accused according to my means yet they were not satisfied. Whenever my daughter met me, she told me that she was being tortured and harassed and that whenever I learnt about the torture about my daughter from other sources, I went to Jullundur, the marital house of my daughter and paid in cash. Thus in this way accused No. 1 collected about Rs. 25000. 00 from me, they made demands from me. " In her statement, the wife alleged that "the accused persons made undue demands of dowry. All the accused pressurised me to bring cash from my parents as they had not given T. V , Scooter, etc. My father pa