Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13.In order to buttress the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (accused), he has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2004(8) Supreme Court Cases 100 (Y.Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another) wherein the Apex Court has held in categorical terms that the complaint itself disclosed that after 15.04.1997 the respondent left the place 'N' (where she was residing with her appellant husband) and came to the City 'C'. Since all the alleged acts as per the complainant took place at 'N', the Courts at 'C' did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

16.It has already been pointed out that the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent (complainant) has advanced his argument mainly on the ground that after meeting out dowry torture at the hands of the revision petitioners (accused), the second respondent (complainant) has been living with her parents at Pudukottai and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai is having jurisdiction to decide the culpability of the revision petitioners (accused). It is not an adulation to say that the decision report in 2004(8) Supreme Court Cases 100 (Y.Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another) is a befitting answer to the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent (complainant). As adverted to earlier, similar facts and circumstances are found in the case referred to in the decision. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent (complainant) is really sans merit and the same can be eschewed and further the provisions of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.