Both thesaid criminal revisions casehave been disposed of by a companymon order dated 31.8.89 by theHigh Court.
The respondents arethe husband, parents in law andtwo sisters in law of the appellant Sujata Mukherjee.
Mukherjee.
The respondents companytended before the learned chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur that the criminalcase was number maintainable before the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate because thecauseof action took place only at raigarhwhich was outside theterritorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrateat Raipur.
As the ChiefJudicial Magistrate wasnot inclined either to quashthe summons or to transfer the criminalcase to thecompetent Court at Raigarh, the aforesaid criminal revision petitions were filed one by all thefive respondents andanotherby fourof the respondents excluding the husband presumably because there was specific allegation againstthe husband that the husbandthat the husband had also gone to Raipur an had assaultedthe appellant and as such husbandcould number plead want of territorial jurisdiction.
Hence, the criminal caseon the basisof companyplaint made by the appellant wasnot maintainable against the said other respondents atRaipur but suchcase was maintainable so far as the husband of the appellant, namely, Sri S.S. Mukherjee is companycerned.
The gist of the allegation of the appellant, Sujata Mukherjee is that on accountof dowry demands, she had been Maltreated and humiliated numberonly in the house of the in laws at Raigarh but asa companysequence of suchevents,the husband of the appellant had also companye to the houseof her parents at Raipur and had also assaulted her.
Justice G.T. Nanavati K. Gambhir, Adv.
Present HonbleMr.
A Prayer wasalso made to quash the summons issued by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate byentertaining the said companyplaint ofSmt.
for State of M.P. for the Respondent M.K. Nair, and S.K. Mehta, Advs.
for the appellant Anoop Chaudhary, Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Advs.
for the Respondent O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered These twoappealsare directed against the order dated 31.8.89passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Courtdisposing of Criminal Revision No.
481 of 1989 and CriminalRevision No.
Criminal RevisionNo.
463/89 waspreferred by four of the respondents challenging the assumption of jurisdiction ofthe Chief judicial magistrate, Raipur in the companyplaint madeby theappellant for offences under Section 498 Aand 506 B and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
463/89.Criminal Revision No.481/89 was preferred by all the five respondents against refusal by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to transferthe case from Raipur to Raigarh.
