By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the quashment of the proceedings filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur by respondent under section 498A/34 IPC and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, being lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The complainant lodged a report at police station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur and on the basis of the allegations made therein a case under section 498A read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the present petitioners. The investigating agency, after the investigation filed the charge sheet in the Court of CJM at Chhatarpur. The petitioners thus filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') complaining that CJM Chhatarpur is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in toto. According to learned counsel, no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Chhatarpur.

On the other hand, it has been contended by Smt. Sushila Paliwal, learned Government Advocate that CJM Chhatarpur is having territorial jurisdiction. In support of her contention she has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal and another, 2001 AIR SCW 4587.

On going through the FIR, it is revealed that complainant Smt. Tanu Sharma got married with petitioner No. 5 on 20.4.2003 at Bhopal. Thereafter, she was living at Bhopal with her husband. As per the averment made in the FIR the parents of the complainant gave the articles mentioned in the FIR and also Rs. 5 lacs cash at Bhopal, but, the in-laws of complainant were not satisfied at the time of 'Vida' they made a demand of a car but it was refused by the complainant. However, when the in-laws persuaded her, she gave assurance that she would pursue her parents. Thereafter, she lived for 3-4 months at her in-laws house, however, on account of non-satisfaction of the demand of the car, her husband was harassing and also became cruel some against her which resulted her to send the message to her brother on telephone. Thereafter, her brother came to Bhopa1. The mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and other family members of the husband were not allowing her to go to her parents house at Chhatarpur, as a result of which her brother took the assistance of Lady Police and came to Chhatarpur. After the arrival at Chhatarpur, the parents of the complainant persuaded one Vikas Marwaha who was the mediator in getting the marriage settled, and thereafter he along with Sanjay Ram and Shailendra Singh went twice-thrice to Bhopal and tried to pacify the in-laws but they did not agree and they specifically told them that they will not allow to keep the complainant till the demand of car is satisfied. Hence the FIR was lodged at Chhatarpur.

It has been submitted by Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR itself discloses that all the incident and demand was made at Bhopal and therefore the complainant left Bhopal and came to Chhatarpur and stayed there. Even the mediator Shri Vikas Marwaha along with Sanjay Ram and Shailendra Singh pacified the in-laws of complainant at Bhopal and to them also the petitioners made demand of a car and this demand was made to them at Bhopal. It has also been putforth by him that all the allegations which are per se without any basis took place according to the complainant at Bhopal and, therefore, the Court at Chhatarpur had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance to section 177 of the Code and has also placed reliance on two decisions of the apex Court Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 AIR SCW 4788, R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. He has also placed reliance on another decision of the apex Court State of M.P. v. K.P. Ghiara, AIR 195