1. The instant petition has been preferred, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for setting aside and quashing the CR Case No. 4/2017, under Sections 406/34 of the IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, and the order, dated 17-02-2017, passed therein. The said complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 herein, as complainant, against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have misappropriated her stridhan properties, given at the time of her marriage with accused petitioner No. 1, Sri Bijay Kumar Jalan. The petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 are the father and mother, respectively, of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2, had also prayed for issuance of search warrant for recovery of stridhan articles from the residence of the petitioners.

2. After the complaint was lodged, the learned Court below recorded the statement of the respondent No. 2, under Section 200 CrPC. By an order dated 17.02.017, the learned Court below passed an order whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 IPC was taken against the petitioners. By the same order, the learned Court below also issued a search warrant directing the O/C, Dergaon P.S to execute the search warrant at the house of the petitioners. The O/C, Dergaon P.S was further directed, by the said order, dated 17.02.2017, to hand over the stridhan articles to the respondent No. 2 on her executing a bond of Rs 5,00,000/-.

3. As said before, the order dated 17.02.2017 and the proceedings in the CR Case No. 4/2017 have been put to challenge, by the accused persons as petitioners, in this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

4. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

5. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the proceedings in CR 4/2017 on the following aspects;

(i) That, the complaint on its reading in entirety does not disclose the commission of any offence.

(ii) That, even if the facts stated in the complaint petition are held to be true then ex facie the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, cognizance ought not to have been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat.

(iii) That, admittedly, the accused persons are residents of Golaghat district which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, therefore, before issuance of process, it was necessary for the Court to have examined all the witnesses for the complainant as mandated by Section 202 CrPC

(iv) That, on the facts stated in the complaint petition the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

6. Mr. Bora, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the cases of T. Abraham Ajith vs Inspector of Police, Chennai, (2004) 8 SCC 100, Manish Ratan vs State of M.P, (2007) 1 SCC 262, Bhura Ram vs State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103, Sardar Singh vs State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 1766) and Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 in order to support his contentions.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, while defending the order passed by the learned trial Court submitted that perusal of the complaint petition shows sufficient materials that petitioners have misappropriated the stridhan articles given to the respondent No. 2 at the time of marriage. Mr. Sahewalla, further argued that neither the complaint is barred by limitation nor the learned trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Mr. Sahewalla, however, conceded that if a mandatory procedure has been violated the case can be remanded to the learned trial Court for compliance of the procedural irregularity. In support of his case, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, has relied on the cases