The main legal point established in the judgment is that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty would have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

ORDER :

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants seek quashment of the FIR registered against them under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the aggrieved wife/complainant, who lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Sirali on 13.03.2021, which was registered at Crime No. 72/2021, alleging that between the period 18.01.2020 to 13.03.2021, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty, both physical and mental for not bringing enough dowry. She has further stated that number of times her family members and relatives tried to intervene and mediate to resolve the issue, but to no avail. She has further stated that when she went to parental home for Rakhi, she was asked not to return without the dowry amount. Her husband and father-in-law came to Sirali on 20.08.2020 and again made a demand for money. She has made a specific allegation that her father-in-law tore the cheque of Rs.2.5 lakhs given by her father, as it was not according to their demand. On an assurance given by her father, they took the complainant back to Bhopal. However, there she was again treated with cruelty. On coming to know about her pitiful condition, her brother and relatives took her back to her parental house on 12.10.2020. Thereafter, the applicants have neither had any contact with her nor made any enquiries about her, in such circumstances, she was compelled to file the complaint.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The aggrieved wife on her own left for her parental home. It is argued that all the allegations made in the FIR regarding cruelty and harassment alleged to have taken place at matrimonial house at Bhopal, no overtact has been alleged at her parental home at Sirali, after she had left the matrimonial home. In these circumstances, the offence of cruelty having been committed in the matrimonial home does not amount to a continuing offence committed in the parental home to which place the wife/complainant may have later shifted. Thus, the registration of FIR and the consequent investigation being carried out by the police authorities of police station Sirali, district Harda is unlawful and without jurisdiction, in view of Section 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in the case of Gurmeet Singh vs. State of M.P. (2006) 1 MPLJ 250, wherein it has been observed:

“I have gone through the FIR lodged by the complainant. On perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment and demand of dowry was also made at Asansol only. She was forced to leave her matrimonial place on account of failure to fulfill the said demand of dowry. She has started to reside at Indore since October, 2003 and thereafter at Indore and even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence has been committed or demand of dowry was made continuously by the applicant-husband. Therefore, in the present case also the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied.”

4. Referring to the documents filed alongwith the petition it is submitted that contrary to the allegations made by the complainant regarding the demand of dowry, the applicant No. 1 himself has transferred money in the account of the aggrieved wife/complainant. Under the circumstances, the allegation of demand of dowry is unconceivable. Further relaying on Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 it is argued that all the family members have been roped in the matrimonial dispute without any specific over-tact against them. Under the circumstances, continuing the criminal prosecution against the applicants is an abuse to the process of Court.

5. Learned counsel fo