The applicants have moved this criminal miscellaneous application, under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 590/2007, State v. Javed Anwar @ Javed Ahmad & Others, under Section 498A, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Almora.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Nasreen Bano tied her nuptial knot on 17.9.2006 with Javed Anwar as per Muslim ceremonies and customs. Her father gave a lot of dowry in the marriage. But after coming to her matrimonial home, she felt the continuous comments, taunts and torturing attitude on the question of dowry extended by the applicants to her. So, she wrote a letter to her father on 12.1.2007 apprising him as to what was happening in her in-laws house. Subsequently, on 20.1.2007, she wrote another letter to her father stating the affairs, which were taking place on the question of insufficient dowry in her matrimonial home. Her father rushed to her assistance and moved an application on 1.2.2007 to the Police Station Kotdwar, where the matrimonial home of Smt. Nasreen Bano was situated. But police did not register any case. Rather on 6.2.2007, her father Janab Ikramuddin fetched her daughter from her matrimonial home at Kotdwar and brought her to parental house at Almora.

3. On 8.2.2007, father of Smt. Nasreen Bano made an application to Anjuman Sewa Samiti, seeking some assistance, but that Samiti expressed its inability to do anything in the matter.

4. Thereafter Smt. Nasreen Bano moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the CJM, Almora for registering the case against the applicants on 12.3.2007, whereupon the order was made by the learned Magistrate and the case was registered on 14.3.2007 against the accused applicants. The applicants rushed to this Court for staying their arrest. Except that of Javed Anwar (husband), arrest of all other applicants was stayed by this Court. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the applicants have approached this Court through this petition seeking quashing of that chargesheet.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the offence is alleged to have taken place within the local jurisdiction of Kotdwar courts, and as such, Almora Police could not have conducted the investigation nor cognizance upon the chargesheet could have been taken by the Magistrate at Almora. Learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the precedent of this Court dated 21.8.2007, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 401 of 2007, Beena Prakash & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, wherein certain other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court have been discussed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and thereupon it was held that since the offence was committed at Bombay, therefore, the Court at Khatima (District Udham Singh Nagar), where the parental house of the girl was situated, was devoid of any jurisdiction to take the cognizance in the matter.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2011 (1) Uttaranchal Decisions 412, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court found that the nature of offence, alleged to be committed in the relevant case, was a continuing one. It was deemed to be continued at the local jurisdiction of the parental house of the girl also. So, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the courts, where the parental house of the girl was situated, had jurisdiction in the case.

7. I have gone through both the precedents (supra). In both the precedents, a number of other rulings have been discussed. The facts of each and every one are slightly different from others. The learned Single Judge of this