Jurisdiction in criminal matters requires that the cause of action arise within the location of the court; complaints filed without proper jurisdiction must be quashed.

1. Petitioners in Crl. MC 1468/2009 are the accused in CC 494/2007 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Third respondent is the de facto complainant therein. She is the petitioner in Crl. RP 2068/2009. Respondents therein are the petitioners in Crl. MC 1468/2009. Crl. MC 1468/2009 is filed to quash Annexure D First Information Report No. 55/2006 of Medical College Police Station, registered on receipt of Annexure C complaint filed by the third respondent before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and forwarded for investigation under S.156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate. After investigation Annexure E final report was filed alleging that petitioners in Crl. MC 1468/2009 committed the offence under S.498A read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code. It is the admitted case that first petitioner married third respondent on 18/01/2004 at Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the revision petitioner that at the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold was given to first petitioner in the Crl. MC, when she was residing with the petitioners in the matrimonial house at Coimbatore with the knowledge and consent of petitioners 2 and 3, alleging that the dowry given was insufficient, Rs.5 lakhs more was demanded and when third respondent did not yield for the demand, she was treated with cruelty, mentally and physically during the period from 18/01/2004 to 07/05/2005, the day on which she was sent back to her parental home at Thiruvananthapuram and all the petitioners in the Crl. MC thereby committed the offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence based on the final report and issued summons to the petitioners. Petitioners filed the Criminal MC under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that even if the allegations in Annexure C complaint are accepted, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and as the prosecution case is that third respondent after the marriage was taken to the matrimonial home at Coimbatore and she was residing there till 07/05/2005 and the cruelty alleged is during that period, the alleged cruelty could only be at Coimbatore and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and therefore the cognizance taken and all the proceedings taken on Annexure E final report is to be quashed. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police , Chennai, 2004 KHC 1409 : 2004 (8) SCC 100 : 2004 (3) KLT SN 162 : 2005 (1) KLJ 449 : AIR 2004 SC 4286, Ramesh and Others v. State of T.N. , 2005 KHC 630 : 2005 (3) SCC 507 : 2005 (2) KLT SN 29 : AIR 2005 SC 1989, Manish Ratan and Others v. State of M.P. and Another, 2006 KHC 1593 : 2007 (1) SCC 262 : JT 2006 (9) SC 630 and Bhuraram and Others v. State of Rajasthan , 2009 (1) SCC Crl. 109 it was argued that on identical facts the Supreme Court, finding that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate, who had taken cognizance, quashed the complaint with liberty to the wife to file a complaint before the competent Court and therefore the same procedure is to be followed and the case is to be quashed. As the Supreme Court in Manish Ratan and Others case (supra) finding that part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who had taken cognizance, case was transferred to the other Court which has also jurisdiction to try the case, as an alternative plea petitioners sought to transfer the case to a Court in Palghat District, whi