Judgment : 1. Thepetitioner is the defacto complainant in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.162 of 2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent police. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to her husband on 6-4-2003 and she was living in her matrimonial home at Chennai. Subsequently, on 20.11.2005, the petitioner accompanied by her husband, came to her parental home wherein, the father of the petitioner accompanied by her husband, came to her parental home wherein, the father of the petitioner offered to give only Rs. 10,000/-, but since the entire amount of Rs. 75,000/- was not paid, the husband left her at parental home. Thereafter a complaint was given before the second respondent police within whose jurisdiction, the parental home of the petitioner is situated. After registration of the case in Crime No. 162 of 2006, the investigation of the same has been transferred to the 3rd respondent at Chennai. Aggrieved against that the present petition for direction has been filed before this Hon‘ble Court seeking for transfer of the investigation from the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially demand of dowry and ill-treatment took place at Chennai at matrimonial home by her husband and his family members, subsequently on 20.11.2005, it is only the husband brought her to parental home and there again the demand and ill-treatment continued and as the demand was not met, the petitioner was left at the parental home. In such circumstances, as part of the cause of action and offence committed within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, it is contended that the second respondent has got jurisdiction to register and investigate. Erroneously, the investigation of the case has been transferred to the 3rd respondent police. 4. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused submits that most of the offences alleged, namely, demand of dowry and ill-treatment took place only at the matrimonial home at Chennai. The second respondent during the course of investigation after coming to know about this has informed the same to his superior officials, so that the case has been rightly transferred to the 3rd respondent police. 5. The second respondent during the course of investigation after coming to know about this has informed the same to his superior officials, so that the case has been rightly transferred to the 3rd respondent police. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent relied on a case in Ramesh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl.) Mad 1074 : 2005 SCC (Crl.) 735 : (2005) 2 LW (Crl.) 807 and contended that since the offence alleged, commenced and took place only at Chennai and as the defacto complainant also lived with the accused for a considerable period of time, the transfer already effected should not be disturbed. 6. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. I do not find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. There are specific allegations and averments to the effect that though there was ill-treatment and demand of dowry at the matrimonial home, her husband accompanied her to partental home situated within the jurisdiction of the second respondent and there again the demand and ill-treatment continued and as the demanded amount of her husband was not paid, she was left behind at her parental place, resulting in the registration of the case. 8. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Bhudeb Chandra Karmakar and Another v. State of West Bengal (2001) 9 SCC 226 : (2001) SCC (Crl.) 1571, which is as follows: “It however, appears to us that it has been specifically stated by the complainant that she is in a pitiable financial position and her brother being poor cannot supper her. In such circumstances, even if the complaint had been lodged in the appropriate court in Calcutta, the respondent could have made application for transfer of the said case to Bankura which is her usual place of residence so that she can effectively pursue the case on the basis of the complaint lodged by her. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that such application for transfer, if made, deserves to be allowed. Taking a pragmatic view of the matter, we feel that the complaint should not be dismissed on the score of jurisdictional impropriety. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that such application for transfer, if made, deserves to be allowed. Taking a pragmatic view of the matter, we feel that the complaint should not be dismissed on the score of jurisdictional impropriety. In the special facts of the case, we direct that it would be treated as if the complaint was presented to the appropriate court in Calcutta and the same has been transferred in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura. Such direction is given for ends of justice and to avoid dismissal of the complaint filed in Bankura for want of jurisdiction and filing another complaint in Calcutta and then to get the same transferred to Bankura for the reasons indicated”. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case to set aside the transfer and accordingly, the 3rd respondent is directed to return back the concerned papers of the case in Crime No. 162 of 2006 to the second respondent and on receipt of that the second respondent may investigate and proceed with the case in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected MP is closed.