Absence of Cause of Action at Parental Home Ousts Jurisdiction in Section 498-A IPC Proceedings

The petitioners (husband and his relatives) sought the quashing of Crime No. 117/24 registered at Police Station Pathari, District Vidisha, under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 took place on December 21, 2023.

The complainant alleged that while residing at her matrimonial home in Lalitpur (U.P.), she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, including demands for ₹1,00,000 and a motorcycle.

The primary contention of the petitioners was that the Vidisha Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because no part of the alleged offense occurred within its limits, as the matrimonial house was in Lalitpur.

Whether the Police Station Pathari, District Vidisha, had the territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR when the alleged incidents occurred at the matrimonial home in Lalitpur, U.P.

Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.PC) for being frivolous, malicious, or an abuse of the process of law.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.PC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the "Bhajan Lal" test from *State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal*, establishing that proceedings may be quashed if allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or maliciously instituted.

Regarding jurisdiction, it followed *Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai*, which held that Section 498-A IPC is not a "continuing offense" and jurisdiction is restricted to where the acts occurred.

It further cited *Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan* to affirm that a court lacks jurisdiction if no part of the cause of action arises within its local limits.

The Court analyzed the complaint and found that all specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demands pertained to the petitioners' residence in Lalitpur, U.P.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that "torture by phone" while the complainant was in Vidisha conferred jurisdiction, noting that under the precedent of *Y. Abraham Ajith*, the offense is not of a continuous nature in this context.

Applying the *Bhajan Lal* standards, the Court observed a tendency to over-implicate the husband's extended family, concluding that the allegations were "inherently improbable" and "manifestly attended with malafides" intended to wreak personal vengeance.

The Court emphasized that it cannot be a "silent spectator" to the misuse of criminal machinery for private grudges.

It held that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the petition was allowed, and Crime No. 117/24 at P.S. Pathari, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.

The petitioners were discharged from their bail bonds.