Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the second respondent, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (new) to quash the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Raichur in C.C. No. 1818/2024 (arising from P.C. No. 384/2023). The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the entire cause of action arose in Yadagiri, where the couple resided after marriage, and that the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation. The court examined the complaint and found that all allegations of dowry demand and harassment pertained to Yadagiri, and no part of the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Raichur court. The court held that the Magistrate at Raichur lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1818/2024 were quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cognizance - Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS - The court examined whether the Magistrate at Raichur had jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under Sections 498A IPC and 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act when the alleged dowry demands and harassment occurred in Yadagiri, and the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation. Held that the Magistrate at Raichur lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose within Raichur. The proceedings were quashed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS - The court held that continuing proceedings without territorial jurisdiction would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the order of cognizance and further proceedings. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate at Raichur had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence when the alleged dowry demands and harassment occurred in Yadagiri, and the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Raichur in C.C. No. 1818/2024 is set aside. All further proceedings in C.C. No. 1818/2024 pending on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Raichur are quashed.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Cognizance
- Domestic violence
- Dowry demand
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 3
Sri. Ganesh Naik for petitioners; Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, HCGP for R1; Sri D. P. Ambekar for R2
Neelakanteshwar S/o Devindrappa Idiga and others
State of Karnataka and Smt. Tanuja W/o Neelakanteshwara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to quash order of cognizance and further proceedings in a complaint under Sections 498A IPC and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Raichur in C.C. No. 1818/2024 and quash further proceedings against them.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the learned Magistrate at Raichur lacked territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action arose in Yadagiri, and the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation.
Previous Decisions
The learned Magistrate at Raichur took cognizance of the offences on 09.05.2024 in C.C. No. 1818/2024 (arising from P.C. No. 384/2023).
Issues
Whether the learned Magistrate at Raichur had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences when the alleged dowry demands and harassment occurred in Yadagiri?
Whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed for lack of territorial jurisdiction?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the entire cause of action arose in Yadagiri, where the couple resided after marriage, and the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation, so the Raichur court lacked jurisdiction.
Respondent No. 2 (complainant) argued that she was residing in Raichur and the court had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
A Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the court has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the cause of action arises. In this case, all alleged dowry demands and harassment occurred in Yadagiri, and the complainant voluntarily moved to Raichur after separation. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Raichur court, and the cognizance taken was without jurisdiction. Continuing such proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners in the captioned petition are assailing the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, wherein, cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate adverting to the complaint.
The court held that the Magistrate at Raichur lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose within Raichur.
Procedural History
The second respondent (complainant) filed a complaint under Sections 498A IPC and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as P.C. No. 384/2023. The learned Magistrate at Raichur took cognizance on 09.05.2024 and registered C.C. No. 1818/2024. The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to quash the order and proceedings. The petition was heard and reserved for orders on 12.12.2025, and the order was pronounced on 15.12.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
