JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner No. 1 (Sushil Kumar Gahlot) was married to the respondent No. 2 (Sarika) on 29.4.1999. This marriage, according to the petitioner, was solemnized at Sardana, Dist. Meerut (UP) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioner No. 1 further claims that he and the respondent No. 2 resided in the matrimonial house at C-58, Pallav Puram, Meerut (UP). The matrimonial alliance between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2, however, went into rough weather and certain disputes arose between the parties. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2 moved out of the matrimonial home. She thereafter lodged a complaint under Sections 498-A/406/34, IPC on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioners herein. As mentioned above, the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner Nos 2 and 3 are younger brother and younger sister respectively of the petitioner No. 1. FIR is registered with Police Station, Gokul Puri, Delhi, being FIR No. 166/01 dated 26.4.2004. In this FIR, summoning orders were passed by the learned Magistrate. On the service of these summons, the petitioners appeared and moved application for their discharge primarily on the ground that no cause of action had arisen at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. This application was dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 1.7.2004. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Crl. Revision Petition No. 52/2004, which has also been dismissed by the learned ASJ vide his judgment dated 24.11.2004. Challenging this order, present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Ground remains the same, namely want of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The complainant had made a complaint before the CAW Cell/NE-Seelampur, Delhi, on 22.11.2000 in the form of a statement. In this statement, she has admitted that marriage took place at Meerut. She has further stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was given by her parents and relatives according to their capacity for purchase of one Maruti car. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in cash, was also given and car was bought from Tania Automobile, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut. Further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, by way of two bank drafts of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively, was also given. She also gave list of other articles given in the dowry. She has further stated that after the marriage she stayed in her matrimonial house, i.e. at Meerut, where further demand was made on the ground that there was a promise to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- and this demand in full was not made. There are also allegations of harassment and demand of dowry including abortion of the complainant, when she was pregnant, against her consent, which was also in local Apollo Nursing Home, Meerut. The allegations of beating are also there, but they also pertained to the period when she was staying in her matrimonial house at Meerut.
3. Notwithstanding this statement of the respondent No. 2 as per which all the allegations constitute commission of alleged offence havingtaken place in Meerut, the reason which persuaded the learned ASJ to dismiss the revision petition is the allegation in this statement categorically stating that the marriage was settled and Rasam Rukai was performed on 10.1.1999, in which ceremony 24 coins of silver and cash of Rs. 11,000/- were given. This ceremony took place in Delhi and because of this ceremony and giving of gifts, which are in connection with the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner No. 1, it could not be said that no act pertaining to the offence involved had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first complaint dated 22.11.2000 lodged with the CAW Cell, it is specifically stated that though there is a mention of Sagai ceremony, this is not at all stated in the statement recorded on 26.4.2001 on the basis of which the FIR was registered and, therefore, such an allegation was afterthought. It was submitted that but for this allegation, the entire cause of action on the basis of which complaint was filed and FIR came to be registered, occurred in Meerut, which was also clear from the statements of Smt. Geeta (complainant’s Mousi – mother’s sister); Jai Praksh (complainant’s Mousa); Bangraj Singh (father of the complainant), who is also a resident of Meerut, and the statement of Shri Jagvir Singh, who acted as mediator in the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner No. 1 and who is also resident of Meerut. He also referred to the statement of one Prempal, who alleged purchased the clothes and other items before the Sagai ceremony of the complainant and is also working at Tehsil Muzaffarnagar, Meerut as Registered Clerk. His submission was that it is clear that even the father of the complainant was resident of Meerut. Thus, both the parties reside in Meerut; marriage was solemnized in Meerut; and the articles were also allegedly given in Meerut. He submitted that” after the complainant left the matrimonial house, she came to Delhi to reside with her Mausi, who is resident of Delhi and only because of this reason, the FIR was got registered in Delhi, which was nothing but harassment of the petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in the complaint dated 22.11.2000 there was specific allegation regarding the Rasam Rukai ceremony having taken place at Delhi and in view thereof the learned ASJ rightly held that the Delhi Court had the jurisdiction over the matter. He also relied upon the provision of Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust can be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property, which is a subject of the offence, was received or retained, etc. as according to him, part of the property was received in Delhi at the time of Rasam Rukai ceremony and, therefore, the Delhi Court had the jurisdiction. He further submitted that the proceedings, if at all, would be only of irregular nature even if they are at a wrong place and Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. very categorically mentions that such proceedings cannot be set aside. His last submission was that when the revision petition was dismissed by the learned ASJ, the present petition, which was in the nature of second revision, was not maintainable in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C.
6. I have considered the submissions of both the Counsel. Indubitably, in her very first complaint dated 22.11.2000 to the In-charge, Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Seelampur, the complainant had categorically mentioned that Sagai ceremony took place on 10.1.1999 at A-60A, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94 and at the time of the said ceremony, parents of the complainant gave 25 silver coins as well as Rs. 11,000/-, in cash, to the petitioner No. 1. It is in view of this specific allegation in the complaint that the learned ASJ has come to the conclusion that since the said ceremony and gifts were in connection with the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner No. 1 and that happened in Delhi, it cannot be said that no act pertaining to the offence involved had occurred within the local jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Such an opinion of the learned ASJ, in view of provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 181, Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be improper or against the law. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no such allegation in the FIR and, therefore, such an allegation in the complaint dated 22.11.2000 before the CAW Cell is an afterthought is clearly misconceived. The FIR is lodged later in point of time. The complaint dated 22.11.2000 is the first complaint after the separation of the parties and on the very first occasion, the complainant had levelled these allegations of Sagai ceremony having taken place in Delhi wherein 25 silver coins and Rs. 11,000/- (in cash) were given to the petitioner No. 1. Therefore, it cannot be labelled as ‘afterthought’ as this complaint is prior in point of time than the statement made in the FIR. No doubt, the FIR does not speak of this Sagai ceremony. However, what would be the effect thereof can be seen only at the stage of trial. At present, we are looking into question of territorial jurisdiction, which aspect is rightly decided by the learned ASJ. There is another important aspect which needs to be mentioned at this stage. The petitioners had earlier filed Crl.M.C. No. 2026/2003, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.3.2004. Once it is seen that the learned ASJ has taken a particular view in the revision petition, which is based on certain facts on record, and on the basis of those facts it cannot be said that the view is perverse. This Court would not interfere with such an order, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C.
7. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.