2025:UHC:2350 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1366 of 2021 Sumit Rana & others ......Applicants Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another …..Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1105 of 2021 Sumit Rana & others ......Applicants Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another …..Respondents Presence: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Mr. Abhishek Verma, through VC, learned counsels for the applicants. Mr. Vipin Painuly, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The applicants have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 365 of 2020 (Santhoshi Rana vs. Sumit Rana & Ors.), as well as the entire proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, alleging that the applicants subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. In support of her complaint, the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and her father was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Based on these statements, the Learned Magistrate initially dismissed the 1 complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2020, citing the absence of medical evidence and contradictions in the statements. 3. The respondent no. 2 challenged the dismissal order by filing a criminal revision before the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, who allowed the revision ex-parte on 15.01.2021 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The applicants subsequently challenged this order before this Hon’ble Court, which, vide order dated 08.03.2021, set aside the order dated 15.01.2021 and directed reconsideration after hearing both parties. Thereafter, the Learned Magistrate, based on the order dated 01.07.2021 of the Revisional Court, issued the impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2021 against the applicants 4. The applicants have contended that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and summoning order therefore is liable to be quashed. They argue that since they are residents of Pauri, the Learned Magistrate at Rudraprayag had no jurisdiction to issue the summoning order under section 202 of CrPC. 5. It is submitted that the territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance and issuing process lies with the court where the accused resides or where the alleged offense occurred and that they could only conduct an inquiry under section 202 and not take cognizance. The applicants contend that the issuance of summons by the Learned Magistrate at Rudraprayag is contrary to law and should be set aside. 6. The State opposes the application on the ground that the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offenses under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is argued that the summoning order was passed in accordance with law after considering the provision under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 7. The State contends that the allegations made by the complainant are serious and require adjudication at trial. Further, it is submitted that the Magistrate, while issuing summons, has only to determine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence. 8. The Court is of the view that the applicants' contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate at Rudraprayag requires careful consideration. The applicants' contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate under the proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. requires careful consideration. The said proviso mandates that where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory before issuance of process, it doesn’t say that the magistrate cannot take cognizance since the accused does not reside in his jurisdiction. 9. Additionally, the allegations pertain to the commission of cruelty and harassment for dowry, which are offenses of a continuous nature. In such cases, jurisdiction cannot be restricted solely to the place of occurrence of the alleged acts but also extends to places where the victim faces the impact of the offense. Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. provides that when an offense is committed in more than one place, jurisdiction can be exercised by the courts at any such place. 10. Given the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions, the issuance of summons by the Magistrate cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The argument that the applicants reside in Pauri does not override the fact that the consequences of the alleged offense occurred within the jurisdiction of Rudraprayag. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate at Rudraprayag had the authority to take cognizance of the complaint and issue the summoning order. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the said Criminal Misc. Applications are dismissed. The applicants are directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court as per law. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 27.03.2025 NR/