JUDGMENT :

G.Girish, J.

The territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, to entertain and proceed with a complaint in respect of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at the place where the victim of the offence had taken shelter and temporarily resides, is the matter to be decided in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the de facto complainant in such a case.

2. The petitioner herein is the estranged wife of the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first respondent. Alleging that the respondents demanded and received dowry in the form of gold ornaments, at the family house of the respondents at Thiruvalla, in connection with the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent, which was solemnised on 01.04.2012, the petitioner preferred complaint against the respondents before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara. The reason for preferring the complaint before the Court at Mavelikkara was that, it is at that place, that the petitioner used to reside with a relative, while she came down to Kerala from her place of employment at Bangalore. The learned Magistrate initially proceeded with the complaint by recording the sworn statement of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents challenged the maintainability of the above complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and limitation by filing Crl.M.C No.9450/2024 before this Court. As per the order dated 14.01.2025, the above Crl.M.C was disposed of, permitting the respondents herein to raise the above challenges in respect of jurisdiction and limitation before the learned Magistrate, and directing the learned Magistrate to decide the same, after affording an opportunity to both parties to advance their arguments. Accordingly, the matter was heard by the learned Magistrate, and it was found that he has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged in that complaint. Thus, by Ext.P1 order dated 15.04.2025, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint under Section 224(a) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to present the same before the proper court. It is the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in this petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. It is true that the alleged demand and receipt of dowry in the form of gold ornaments by the respondents was at their family house at Thiruvalla. Obviously, the court having jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in that matter is the Magistrate Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the aforesaid family house of respondents 1 to 3 is situated at Thiruvalla, in view of the provisions contained in Section 197 BNSS. However, Section 199 of BNSS provides that, if the consequence of an act, which would amount to an offence, had ensued at another place, then such offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such consequence has ensued. Thus, if it is shown that the victim of an offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act suffers the mental trauma of the said offence, at a place where she temporarily resides, then the court having jurisdiction over such place where she temporarily resides, could entertain a complaint relating to the said offence and proceed with the enquiry and trial, in view of the provisions contained under Section 199 BNSS. It is by taking note of the said principles contained in Section 179 Cr.P.C, which is pari materia with Section 199 BNSS, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 384] that, in respect of the offence under Sectio