Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. Heard.

2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 02 of 2004 Smt Seema v. Azadveer and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S Manglaur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate Roorkee.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 Azadveer @ Pappu got married to respondent No. 4 Smt Seema on 08.03.2009. After her marriage she lived with her in laws house. Out of the wedlock one daughter was born. It appears that after some years the parties to matrimony could not pull well. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 4 that she was taken by her husband Azadveer (petitioner No. 2) to her (parental house) in village Gadarjuda in district Haridwar, where he left her and told her parents that he would not take back respondent No. 4 unless the demand of dowry is met. It is also alleged that on 23.09.2003 at about noon the complainant was badly beaten by the accused for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident of 'MARPEET' relates to Village Gangdaspur, Jat within the limits of P.S Deoband, district Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. As such in view of the provision contains in Section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court at Roorkee (District Haridwar in Uttarakhand) has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. I have perused the Criminal complaint, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1to the petition. A part of cause of action is said to have been taken place in village Gangdaspur (District Saharanpur), but another part of cause of action is alleged to have taken place in village Gadarjuda (Tehsil Roorkee), District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Clause (b) of Section 178 of Cr.P.C provides that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas, has jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that since the marriage between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 4 took place way back in the year 1990, as such the provision of section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are not attracted. However, no provision was brought to my notice in the Act which technically provides that after particular period of time of the marriage, the Act becomes inapplicable. It is quite true that older the marriage, lesser are the chances of making demand of dowry but that by itself, is no rule on the basis of which, it can be said that the demand of dowry gets out of clutches of the Act after particular period of marriage.

6. Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the factual aspect of the matter whether any demand was made or not can be better examined, in the present case, by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this case to hold as to correctness in the allegation made in the criminal complaint, on the basis of incomplete evidence before it.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of this case, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observation that petitioners are at liberty to raise their plea of innocence before the trial court.