The main legal point established in the judgment is that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives would have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

This matter was taken up today in the pre-lunch session, whereby, in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court on 28.08.2023, the parties were directed to be called upon to appear in person in order to enable them to participate in the mediation proceedings.

2. The C482 Application was taken up once again in the post-lunch session along with the Mediator’s report dated 03.10.2023, wherein he has reported that the parties are not in a position to settle their dispute, as they could not reach to an amicable settlement. Hence, this C482 Application has to be decided on merits.

3. Briefly stated facts and the basis of initiation of the C482 proceedings by the present applicants is by giving its challenge to the Chargesheet No. 24 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 and the consequential summoning order dated 12.05.2023, as it has been passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat, in Criminal Case No. 496 of 2023, State Vs. Ajay Gupta and others, whereby the present applicants have been summoned to be tried for the offence under Sections 323, 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The prime argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is as to whether the proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat, would at all be tenable in view of the set of allegations levelled in the FIR No. 83 dated 01.10.2022, as it was got registered by the complainant against the present applicants?

5. Though the chain of offence, which has been narrated and as read over by the learned counsel for the applicants, it will have a continuous cause of action both places, i.e. at Bareilly, as well as that of District Champawat, because it was an half hearted argument, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants and that too, without there being any specific pleading to the said effect with regard to the jurisdiction where the matter could have been tried.

6. Apart from above, if the contents of the FIR itself is taken into consideration, apart from reference of certain complaints which have been filed before the SHO, Bareilly on 15.05.2022 (which is not on record), there is no other specific mention with regard to any act of offence, which is complained of, to have specifically taken place at Bareilly between the parties.

7. Apart from it, since the offence being of a matrimonial in nature, this Court is of the view, that where there is continuous cause of action, if part of the cause of action has taken place at Champawat, as referred to in the FIR, which makes reference of the complaint dated 25.04.2021, the applicants cannot raise a plea that the proceedings drawn by way of registration of an FIR, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who has taken cognizance in the matter, would not have the jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offence.

8. The aforesaid principle was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment as reported in 2020 (17) SCC 484, Nitika Vs. Yadwinder Singh and Others, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paras 3, 4 & 7 which are extracted hereunder, that the place of suing would be the place where after the dispute has arisen between the parties where the wife is residing.

“3. In para 44 of the judgment the following has been observed by the High Court: (Yadwinder Singh case [Yadwinder Singh v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 2149], SCC OnLine HP)

“44. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as has been discussed above, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that Police at Nalagarh has/had no jurisdiction to enquire into the contents of FIR and as such there is no occasion for this Court to go into the correctness of the allegation as well as sustainability of charge, if any, framed against the petitioners. As has been noticed hereinabove, inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, is to be exercised sparingly, carefully or with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests sp