JUDGMENT

B.D. Rathi, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioners-accused is directed against an order dated 2/11/2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 868/12 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, district Morena framing charges against the accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts, just for the decision of this revision petition are that on 24/6/12 FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2-Smt. Seema Sehar against the petitioners/accused. The allegations contained in the FIR for the sake of convenience are recapitulated in four parts as under:-

"(i) I (complainant) is serving as a teacher in the Govt. Primary School, Chhoti Malpur, Block Pabda, district Alirajpur. I am a permanent resident of Porsa. My marriage was solemnized on 27/11/2010 with Rahul Sehar, resident of Guna. My father borne expenditure of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the said marriage. I resided in the matrimonial house for three months. During this period, my father-in-law Hariram Sehar, mother-in-law Rajni Sehar and husband Rahul Sehar raised demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash and four wheelers and asked me to bring the dowry from my parents if wants to live with them (in-laws).

(ii) On 28/1/2012 I came to my parental home at Porsa. I told to my mother and father about raising demand of dowry by the in-laws and then my father gave Rs. 20,000/- once to my husband.

(iii) Thereafter, I came back to my matrimonial home (Guna). At matrimonial home, my husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to talk that their son (husband) has now become permanent employee and therefore various alliances for his marriage are coming, hence, I was told to bring more amount from my parents. Then at the period of short intervals, I was beaten by my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.

(iv) After that I was sent to my parental house at Porsa. On 14/4/2011 my father-in-law Hariram Sehar came to my parental home at Porsa. In the presence of my mother, my father-in-law told that if amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- would be given in dowry then they (in-laws) would allow to live her daughter (complainant). Then after abusing I was also beaten by my father-in-law. Despite efforts by my mother, he was not convinced and went back. Thereafter I started living either in my parents house or Alirajpur. In Family Disputes Centre at Ambah a case is pending. My all ornaments and the articles of dowry which were presented at the time of marriage have been retained by in-laws. So the report is being lodged for taking appropriate action."

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report/complaint, Crime No. 149/12 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, district Morena where charges for commission of offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. have been framed against all the petitioners by the court in Criminal Case No. 868/12 under the order impugned.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised submissions in two-folds. It is contended by the counsel that on bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR it is crystal clear that in first phase of the incident, the entire offence has been committed at Guna by all the petitioners and therefore, the court of Morena has no jurisdiction to try with the case. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Jitendra & others Vs. State of M.P. 2009 (4) MPHT 175 and Pankaj Mehrotra and another Vs. Shilpi Mehrotra and another, 2012 (5) MPHT 229.

6. The second argument is that if we take up the second phase of the incident, then as per the prosecution's own case the complainant was subjected to mal-treatment and harassment by the father-in-law, namely, Hariram Sehar (pet