The jurisdiction of the court at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial home and the application of Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.10.2019, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, including the entire criminal proceedings, arising out of a Complaint Case No.3467 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-A.M.-V, Ranchi.

3. The complaint was filed by the complainant Anita Kumari Goswami, stating therein that the complainant and the petitioner came to know each other through Facebook in the year 2015. Then petitioner came to complainant’s house at Ranchi with his father and brother then complainant also went to work place and proposed to the complainant for marriage. Even parents and other family members came to see her and gave their consent for marriage and Rs.5,00,000/- was fixed for marriage and they also took Rs.1,50,000/- during the petitioner was working at Agartalla, Tripura and further alleged that the petitioner proposed the complainant to go there, when the complainant denied to go alone, the petitioner then he arranged Air Ticket for her along with her mother, petitioner took them to Mata Bari Temple. When the complainant entered inside the temple along with petitioner, then he put vermillion on her head and thread as Mangal Sutra and put mental pressure on her to stay as husband and wife. Mother of the complainant showed her objection and scolded the petitioner. Even the complainant opposed this, but later on they stayed as husband and wife further alleged that the petitioner assured to complainant for marry and for the same write in a piece of paper and put signature on it. Later on petitioner got government job at Cement Corporation of India, Himachal Pradesh and petitioner and his family members evaded from marriage. Since the complainant was under bona fide belief that she is legally wedded wife of the accused, she reposed full faith on the petitioner and trusted the words of the petitioner regarding marriage. Hence lodgment of the present complaint.

4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took the Court to the entire complaint petition and submits that all the cause of action have taken place at Agartalla in the State of Tripura. He submits that in view of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C., once the case under the criminal sections have arisen in a particular territory, i.e. required to be lodged in that territory and only that District is having the jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and trial.

5. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in 2005 (1) JCR 15 (SC), where in Para-10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“10. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms f Section 177 of the Code it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ingredients of Section 493 ad 496 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out, as in the complaint it has been disclosed that the complainant was a major lady and she herself went to the place of the petitioner. He submits that the lady is major and she is not lawfully married with the petitioner and in view of that Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. By way of referring to Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code, he further submits that if Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted, Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted. He further submits that for the same cause of action, another FIR has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2, which was numb