(1) Vide instant petition petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 28.01.2006 passed by Id. MM, Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the Id. Judge has dismissed the application under Section 177, Cr.P.C.

(2) LD. counsel for petitioners submits, on the complaint being filed by respondent No.2 Lata W/o Sushil Kumar before CAW Cell, East Delhi on 08.04.1997 in which she has alleged that marriage has taken place with the petitioner No. 1 at Kanpur and dowry articles also have entrusted by her parents at Kanpur and that her in-laws have tortured her for demand of dowry etc. at Kanpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, as per the complaint of respondent No.2 the cruelty as alleged by her has taken place at Kanpur and marriage has also taken place at Kanpur. Thereafter, she was brought back from Kanpur to Delhi by her parents, since then, she has been residing at Delhi.

(3) By this petition, the petitioner has raised the issue that since, all the incidents took place at Kanpur therefore, Delhi court has no jurisdiction to entertain the alleged complaint filed by the respondent No.2.

(4) The respondent No.2 has filed the reply to this petition and submits that the instant petition is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 178 of Cr.P.C:.The relevant provisions of said Section are reproduced hereinafter for ready reference.

"178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a)................... (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent had filed the reply to the application under Section 177, being filed by the petitioners before the ld. trial court. In the reply, it was clearly stated that the cruelty was also committed at Delhi, well within the jurisdiction of ld. Trial court. Further, the petitioners and his sister Rano were also residing at Delhi, where, the complainant/respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty.

(5) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also raised the preliminary objection that the instant petition is being filed at a belated stage. The ld. trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner including, accused Rano vide its order dated 26.08.2002.

(6) Moreso, the prosecution witnesses has already been examined and then after a gap of 4 years i.e. on 11.03.2005, the impugned application under Section 177, Cr.P.C. was filed, without disclosing as to how and in what manner petitioner was prejudiced. Ld. counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the instant petition is not maintainable because Section 462, Cr. PC. prohibits the court, unless the condition as mentioned in the said Section is not fulfilled. The said Section is reproduced for ready reference;

"462. Proceedings in wrong place. No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice."

(7) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the nuptial celebrations were started by 'Shagun' held at Delhi and dowry was entrusted to petitioner No. 1 in the marriage at Delhi. These facts have been concealed by the petitioner, whereas, he has wrongly mentioned that "dowry articles were entrusted by her parents at Kanpur". Thus, the entrustment of dowry articles of petitioner No. 1 took place at Delhi and not at Kanpur and, therefore, complaint was filed well within the jurisdiction of Delhi.

(8) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has pointed o