Kerala High Court
Aparna Kunjamma vs Anil Sasidharan on 31 July, 2025
2025:KER:56330
O.P (Crl) No.277/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(CRL.) NO. 277 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2025 IN CMP NO.2307 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
APARNA KUNJAMMA
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.ANIL SASIDHARAN, MANJOOR SIVAPRAVA, PALIYEKKARA
VADAKKU, THIRUVALLA, (NOW RESIDING AT DEVARAGAM,
PADINJARE KOTTA, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690101)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.PADMAKUMAR
SHRI.NISHIL.P.S.
SHRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:
1 ANIL SASIDHARAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.SASIDHARAN, ‘INDRAPRASTHAM', VADAKKAN
PARAVOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 683513
2 U.N.SASIDHARAN
AGED 69 YEARS
F/O.ANIL SASIDHARAN, ‘INDRAPRASTHAM', VADAKKAN
PARAVOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 683513
3 LATHA SASIDHARAN
AGED 60 YEARS
M/S.ANIL SASIDHARAN, ‘INDRAPRASTHAM', VADAKKAN
PARAVOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 683513
2025:KER:56330
O.P (Crl) No.277/2025 2
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL)
SMT.NISSI V. RAJESH
SRI.P.S.NANDANAN
SRI.P.N.ANOOP
SMT.SMITHA PILLAI
SRI.M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.NADEEM NAZAR
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.07.2025, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56330
O.P (Crl) No.277/2025 3
JUDGMENT
The territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, to entertain and
proceed with a complaint in respect of the offences under Sections 3, 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at the place where the victim of the
offence had taken shelter and temporarily resides, is the matter to be
decided in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India by the de facto complainant in such a case.
2. The petitioner herein is the estranged wife of the first
respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first
respondent. Alleging that the respondents demanded and received
dowry in the form of gold ornaments, at the family house of the
respondents at Thiruvalla, in connection with the marriage of the
petitioner with the first respondent, which was solemnised on
01.04.2012, the petitioner preferred complaint against the respondents
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara. The
reason for preferring the complaint before the Court at Mavelikkara was
that, it is at that place, that the petitioner used to reside with a relative,
while she came down to Kerala from her place of employment at
2025:KER:56330
Bangalore. The learned Magistrate initially proceeded with the complaint
by recording the sworn statement of the petitioner. In the meanwhile,
the respondents challenged the maintainability of the above complaint
on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and limitation by filing Crl.M.C
No.9450/2024 before this Court. As per the order dated 14.01.2025, the
above Crl.M.C was disposed of, permitting the respondents herein to
raise the above challenges in respect of jurisdiction and limitation before
the learned Magistrate, and directing the learned Magistrate to decide
the same, after affording an opportunity to both parties to advance their
arguments. Accordingly, the matter was heard by the learned
Magistrate, and it was found that he has no territorial jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offences alleged in that complaint. Thus, by
Ext.P1 order dated 15.04.2025, the learned Magistrate returned the
complaint under Section 224(a) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 to present the same before the proper court. It is the aforesaid
order, which is under challenge in this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:56330
4. It is true that the alleged demand and receipt of dowry in
the form of gold ornaments by the respondents was at their family
house at Thiruvalla. Obviously, the court having jurisdiction to entertain
a complaint in that matter is the Magistrate Court having territorial
jurisdiction over the place where the aforesaid family house of
respondents 1 to 3 is situated at Thiruvalla, in view of the provisions
contained in Section 197 BNSS. However, Section 199 of BNSS provides
that, if the consequence of an act, which would amount to an offence,
had ensued at another place, then such offence may be enquired into or
tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such consequence has
ensued. Thus, if it is shown that the victim of an offence under the
provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act suffers the mental trauma of the
said offence, at a place where she temporarily resides, then the court
having jurisdiction over such place where she temporarily resides, could
entertain a complaint relating to the said offence and proceed with the
enquiry and trial, in view of the provisions contained under Section 199
BNSS. It is by taking note of the said principles contained in Section
179 Cr.P.C, which is pari materia with Section 199 BNSS, that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 384] that, in respect of the
2025:KER:56330
offence under Section 498A I.P.C, the courts at the place where the wife
takes shelter, after leaving or driven away from matrimonial home on
account of acts of cruelty committed by husband or his relatives, would
have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging the commission of the
aforesaid offence. The aforesaid view has been followed by the Apex
Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749]
also. The principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid decisions are applicable to offences under the Dowry
Prohibition Act as well. This is because of the reason that Section 498A
I.P.C as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are meant
to afford protection to a large number of women suffering from the evil
consequences of the social menace of dowry. Therefore, it has to be
held that, in cases relating to the commission of offences under the
provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act also, the courts at the place where
the victim woman takes shelter and temporarily resides, are empowered
to conduct enquiry and trial in respect of those offences. When viewed
in the above perspective, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate
returning Ext.P2 complaint preferred by the petitioner, cannot be said to
be legally sound. Therefore, the prayer in this original petition to pass
2025:KER:56330
the necessary orders to undo the error committed by the learned
Magistrate in the above regard, deserves meritorious consideration.
In the result, the original petition stands allowed as follows:
Ext.P1 order dated 15.04.2025 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara in C.M.P No.2307/2024 is hereby set
aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to accept Ext.P2 complaint,
and to proceed with enquiry and trial, in accordance with law.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2025:KER:56330
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 277/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2025 IN
CMP NO. 2307/2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.9.2024 IN
CMP NO. 2307/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I,
MAVELLIKARA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
'LEARNED MAGISTRATE COURT')
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN TR.P(
C)NO.318/2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED
11.2.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.1.2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.9450/2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
