( 1 ) THE petitioner and respondent are the original complainant and ori. accused of Criminal Case No. 1887 of 1999 filed in the Court of Ld. J. M. F. C. , Halol, respectively. The petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1-Gunvantlal Keshavlal Tank. Respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, at the time of marriage, stridhan was given to her by her parents, relatives and friends which she has taken with her at her matrimonial home. Therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and she left the matrimonial home with empty hands. With a view to get her stridhan back from the accused, attempts were made but as no heed was paid by the accused to the request made by the petitioner, she ultimately was compelled to file criminal complaint in the Court of Ld. J. M. F. C. , Halol for the offence punishable under sec. 406 of IPC. The complaint was sent for police investigation under sec. 156 (3) of Crpc and ultimately on 13. 12. 1999 the Investigating Agency has filed the charge-sheet in that Court.

( 3 ) ON 22. 11. 2000, the respondents i. e. accused persons preferred an application Exh. 9 stating that the complaint filed is a false and concocted complaint and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. J. M. F. C. , Halol has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Ld. J. M. F. C. after hearing the parties, rejected the said application vide order dated 16. 5. 2001. The said decision of the ld. J. M. F. C. was challenged by way of filing a Revision Application in the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra. The Ld. Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 14. 8. 2001 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the Ld. J. M. F. C. , Halol and further directed to issue the notice to the complainant and to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation of the same in the proper court as per the provisions of section 201 of Crpc. The Original complainant has therefore, now assailed the said decision of the ld. Sessions Judge by way of this Criminal Revision Application.

( 4 ) SOME other facts being relevant are required to be stated. Undisputedly, the respondent no. 1 has got married as per Hindu rites with the petitioner at Vadodara on 16. 5. 1985. After marriage, the petitioner started residing with the respondent no. 1 at Adipur, Dist. Kutchh and within a very short period of time, the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and to go back to her parental home. The petitioner had approached the Court of Ld. J. M. F. C. , Halol with an application under sec. 125 of Crpc for maintenance and this application has been granted and maintenance of Rs. 500/ has been fixed and ordered to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 every month. Simultaneously, the respondent no. 1 also preferred an application under sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Ld. Extra Assistant Judge, Bhuj praying for divorce. This Hindu Marriage Petition No. 28 of 1991 preferred by the respondent no. 1 for divorce was allowed and the decree for divorce was granted. The appeal preferred against the decree of divorce by the petitioner-wife is pending. During all this time, the petitioner was requesting the accused persons to return her stridhan and ultimately in the year 1999 pending her appeal against the decree of divorce, she filed the above criminal complaint. There is one civil suit pending between the petitioner and respondent no. 1-hunsband in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara under sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the same has been resisted by the respondent no. 1 husband. In response to the query raised by the Court, ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 Mr. Thakkar, after referring the relevant documents has stated before this Court that in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner-wife has shown some other ad