The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with a case under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing that the alleged acts must occur within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction.

ORDER :- Application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojini Arawattigi and Dr. Vinay Arawattigi for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7849 of 2004 Rashmi Harry v. Dr. Vinay and others under Section 498-A IPC, P. S. Cantt, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

2. I have heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and have perused the material available on record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 who is wife of applicant No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants. According to opposite party No. 2 she was married with applicant No. 2 according to Christian rites and applicant No. 1 is her mother in law. At the time of marriage, correct facts about the qualification of applicant No. 2 were not disclosed. However marriage took place and dowry was also given but the applicants were not satisfied and they started harassing her and hurling abuses on her. She was humiliated now and then. However she continued to tolerate. Opposite party No. 2 and her father could know only after the marriage that applicant No. 2 had not even completed the medical course and was doing computer job . After about 1-1/2 years of the marriage she was left by the applicant No 2 at Kanpur and he went back to complete his internship and also asked the complainant and her father to give sufficient dowry so that he could settle as self employed professional. The complainant and her father tried to persuade the applicant No. 2 not to leave her at Kanpur and not to demand any further dowry but to no effect. The complainant opposite party No. 2 gave birth to a daughter on 23-11-2001 at Kanpur but the applicant No. 1 did not come to see her and never rejoiced that occasion. In March, 2003 the complainant went to Vellore, Tamil Nadu to live with her husband but again he started demanding of Rs. 10 lacs as cash. On account of non fulfillment of this demand she was inhumanly treated. Her daughter was sent to Miraj and the complainant was sent to Kanpur and was asked not to come till dowry demand was fulfilled. In para 11 of the complaint it has been alleged that the accused applicant No. 2 had left the complainant at Kanpur in August 2003 and the child Simran was snatched and sent to Miraj without even considering the pain and grief of complainant in making forcible separation. When the complainant resisted she was ill treated and beaten by the accused persons. This all amounts to mental as well as physical cruelty. In November 2003 applicant No. 2 took the complainant to Miraj on the occasion of second birth anniversary of her daughter but she was not allowed to go to the place of her in laws and was kept at the house of a friend of her husband. She was allowed to meet her daughter for 2-3 hours only. On 2-12-2003 the complainant along with her father went to Pune and requested the accused persons to leave obstinacy and dowry demand and to allow the complainant to stay with her daughter but to no effect. Since then tireless efforts have been made by the complainant and her father to save matrimonial life but in vein. In the circumstances, complainant filed the complaint for taking action against the accused under Sections 498-A, 323 506,420, IPC read with Section 3/4, D. P. Act.

4. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate also examined Stephen M. Harry P.W.-2 father of the complainant under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case he directed to summon the accused persons under Section 498-A, IPC.

5. The application has been filed on the ground that the Court at Kanpur has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter because the cause of action did not arise within the local limits of the Court at Kanpur.

6. Opposite party No. 2 has filed counter af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document