The telephonic demand for dowry can give territorial jurisdiction to the court under Section 182 Cr.P.C., even if the overt acts constituting the offence occurred at a different location.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2.

2. These applications have been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2246 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the accused persons, who are the petitioners in both the cases.

3. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the complaint case, is that the complainant's second daughter Poonam Kumari was married with Nagendra Singh, according to Hindu rites and customs at Varanasi. Expenses of the marriage was borne by the complainant. On the very next day of marriage, the husband started demanding Alto Car as well as cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. From the next day, all the accused persons, who are the petitioners herein, started demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as well as Alto Car. The complainant's daughter was being subjected to abuses and were insisted upon to make telephone calls to her father for demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and Alto Car. On being informed, the complainant along with his relatives went to the house of the accused persons so many times in order to solve the problem of his daughter, but it never proved to be fruitful. On account of Poonam Kumari being inflicted with mental and physical torture, the complainant was compelled to bring his daughter back to Ranchi from Varanasi on 10th August, 2008. Further it has been alleged that the accused persons by making telephone call, to the complainant, made it clear that they will never came Ranchi for taking Bidai of the complainant's daughter unless the demand of dowry i.e. Alto Car & Rs.1,00,000/- is fulfilled.

4. On such complaint, when the cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 16.03.2009, it was challenged before this Court by way of these criminal miscellaneous petitions.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no cause of action ever accrued at Ranchi where the case has been lodged and still, the court has taken cognizance of the offence, which is quite illegal, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (4) East Cr. C. 86 (SC): [(2008) 11 SCC 103 (SC)] and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police [(2004) 8 SCC 100].

6. As against this, Mr. G.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 submits it is not correct on the part of the petitioners to submit that the cause of action has never accrued at Ranchi as in the very last paragraph of the complaint petition, it has been alleged that the accused persons by making call to the complainant, had put forth the demand of the dowry and thereby, the court does have jurisdiction in terms of the provision as contained in Section 182 Cr.P.C. and, hence, the court was absolutely justified in taking cognizance of the offence.

7. Upon it, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in similar situation where the demand has been made on telephone, this Court did hold that the cause of action never accrues, if the demand is made on telephone.

8. Further by referring to the provision as contained in Section 182 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that though the word 'any offence' has been used in Section 182 Cr.P.C. but it mainly relates to the offence of cheating and, thereby, that provision cannot be taken aid of by the complainant.

9. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his submission, has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Ajay Kr. Jain @ Ajay Kr. Kala @ Ajay Kumar Jain (Kala) & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 282.

10. Before proceeding with the matter, I may refer to the provision as contained in Section 177 Cr. P.C., which reads as follows:-

“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and t