The jurisdiction for an offence under S.498A IPC can exist where the consequences of cruelty are experienced, regardless of the initial place of occurrence.

1. The petitioners have filed an application under S.482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of the first information report lodged by Madhusudan Sinha on 31-12-2005 at Police Station - Ambikapur which culminated in filing of charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur under S.498A of IPC.

2. Brief facts are that Kiran Sinha is the daughter of Madhusudan Sinha and Annapurna Sinha. She was married to petitioner Amrendu Jyoti on 21-4-2003 in Patna. Petitioner No. 2 Shardendu Jyoti is the elder brother of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 Neelu is his wife. The petitioners reside at Delhi which is the matrimonial home of Kiran Sinha. A written report dated 10-5-2005 was lodged by Madhusudan Sinha in Police Station - Ambikapur stating that at her matrimonial home at Delhi, Kiran Sinha was treated with utmost cruelty by the petitioners and was subjected to harassment and mental torture on account of a demand for dowry. It was stated in the complaint that on 22-5-2003 Madhusudan Sinha returned with Kiran Sinha from Delhi to Ambikapur and reached Ambikapur on 24-5-2005. It was also stated in the complaint that on return to Ambikapur, Kiran Sinha narrated the manner in which she was harassed by the petitioner at Delhi. Paragraphs 5 to 12 of the complaint are reproduced below:
(Editors Note: - Vernacular matter omitted)

3. Here it would be apt to reproduce (1) a letter written by Kiran Sinha from Delhi and (2) some letters written by Kiran Sinha and Madhusudan Sinha from Ambikapur :
(Editors Note: - Vernacular matter omitted)

4. On the basis of first information report lodged by Madhusudan Sinha at Police Station - Ambikapur, an offence was registered at Police Station - Ambikapur and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur.

5. Petitioners placed reliance on Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai , 2004 AIR SCW 4788 : 2004 CriLJ 4180 while contending that no cause of action arose at Ambikapur since the offence under S.498A of IPC was alleged to have been committed wholly at Delhi and was not a continuing offence. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by this Court in case Anil Kumar Saxena v. State of Chhattisgarh in M.Cr.C.No. 2424/2005 (Reported in 2006 CriLJ (NOC) 293). On this premise, it was prayed that the registration of F.I.R. at Police Station - Ambikapur, filing of charge sheet and the subsequent trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned P.L. and Shri Praveen Das, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 argued that under S.179, Cr.P.C. where the act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. It was argued that although harassment on account of a demand for dowry and acts of cruelty initially commenced at Delhi, yet cruelty not only included physical cruelty but also mental cruelty. Within one year of the marriage, Kiran Sinha was forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of the extreme acts of cruelty and harassment by the petitioners on account of a demand for dowry. The consequence of such cruelty was not only the mental torture which Kiran Sinha had to undergo while she was at her maternal home, but also in having been forced to live separately from her husband on account of reluctance of the petitioners to take her back despite several letters written by her and father Madhusudan Sinha. Reliance was placed on Bina Dey v. Pratibha Day , 2003 CriLJ 3618 (Gau) and Vijai Ratan Sharma v. State of U.P. , 1988 CriLJ 1581 (A