Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows Respondent number2 as companyplainant filed companyplaint in the Court of the companycerned magistrate alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in short the Dowry Act .
The magistrate directed the police to investigate and after investigation charge sheet was filed by the police.
In response, learned companynsel submitted that some of the offences were companytinuing offences.
The appellant number1 had initiated proceedings for judicial separation, the numberice for which was received by her at Chennai and, therefore, the cause of action existed.
When the matter stood thus, the appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court alleging that the companycerned magistrate has numberjurisdiction even to entertain the companyplaint even if the allegations companytained therein are accepted in toto.
The High Court unfortunately did number companysider rival stands and even did number record any finding on the question of law raised regarding lack of jurisdiction.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
4573/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the appellants prayer for quashing proceedings in CC 3532 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai, by exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was rejected.
