Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.12.2011 Mrs. Anju ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Rajan Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the private respondents of various allegations, which arose on account of matrimonial dispute and differences. On the basis of the complaint so made, FIR No. 245 dated 29.12.2005 is registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat. The police after investigation submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against respondents No. 2 to 5. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat framed the charges against respondents No. 2 to 5 on the basis of allegations as are contained in Annexure P-1. The first charge alleged against the respondents is that they subjected the petitioner to cruelty by coercing her to meet Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 2 unlawful demand of more dowry i.e. one AC and sum of ` 5 lakhs in cash, thus, committing the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The second charge preferred against the respondents is that they were entrusted with certain property and articles mentioned in the complaint of which they committed criminal breach of trust and thereby committed offence under Section 406 IPC.. Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed revision before the Court of Sessions against the order framing the charges. One of the plea raised relating to the jurisdiction of the Court at Sonipat to deal with the complaint besides pleading that allegations made against them were vague hence no charge would be framed. The revisional Court, thereafter, set aside the order framing the charge by detailed order on 21.11.2009. The Sessions Court not only found that no offence is made out but also viewed that the Court at Sonipat would lack territorial jurisdiction to try the offences alleged. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Court. Counsel for the petitioner would first contend that the Court was not justified in quashing the order framing the charge only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and in this regard has referred to the provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. Support is also sought from the ratio of law laid down in Gaganpreet Kaur versus Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh and others 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 394. Notice of motion was issued and no response has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the respondents, Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 3 however, has made elaborate submission to justify the order passed by the Court of Sessions. As per the counsel, the Court has not only interfered on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction but has otherwise given valid justification for setting aside in the order framing the charge. In this regard, the counsel has read in extenso the judgment impugned through the present petition. The perusal of the judgment reveals that basically three issues have weighed with the Court to interfere in the order directing framing of a charge. What has heavily weighed with the Court is the delay on the part of the complainant of 15 months to file this complaint after her alleged exit from the matrimonial home. The Court has made comment whether the allegation, as contained in the FIR, would reveal the demand for dowry. In this regard this Court has made reference to three occasions as alleged in the FIR, which were pressed to make the allegation of demand of dowry. The case set up in the FIR is that the petitioner was married to Sh. Krishan Kumar on 21.04.2003. Sh. Kishan Kumar is a Member of Delhi Police Force. The parents of the petitioner had spent money beyond their means for this wedding. A Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-5CC-3320 was given in dowry. It is alleged that despite this, the respondents - husband, mother-in-law and others were not satisfied with the dowry items and they repeatedly raised provocations demanding dowry. The petitioner narrated this to her father during her routine visits to parental home. The father had expressed his inability to meet the demands, he being the teacher and having limited resources. Still, the respondents demanded sum of ` 5 lakhs for purchase of residential flat at Delhi. Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 4 Since the father of the petitioner was not in a position to meet this demand, the petitioner decided to take the acts of harassment and torture in her stride. In the meantime, the petitioner was blessed with the baby boy. Gifts worth ` 1.50 lakhs were given in Pilia ceremony. Still the respondents were not satisfied with the gifts. It is also stated that occasionally gadgets like AC etc. were given but the petitioner was still turned out of the matrimonial home most unceremoniously. The above being the gist of the allegations, the revisional court, in my view, has gone to minutely to analyze the evidence and worth of it while interfering in the order framing the charge. Such meticulous analysis of evidence and to appreciate the worth of evidence may not certainly be called for. It is so well settled that at the time of framing charges, the Court is only to see if prima facie case is made out on the basis of uncontroverted allegations. At this stage, worth of the allegation is not to be evaluated. The revisional Court apparently has fell in error in minutely going into the analysis of evidence and to appreciate the same to take a decision that there was no demand of dowry. The allegation of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs for purchase of plot has just been glossed over on the ground that this was only for buying the house. Even it was for buying a house, it would be a demand. May be that some gifts were given on certain occasions, which may not fall within the purview of dowry but this was to be seen at the time of final adjudication once the entire evidence comes before the Court. Evidence is yet to be led by the prosecution on the basis of which some inference could be so drawn and the view formed. The trial Judge had rightly considered the material before it on the basis of investigation carried out and the Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 5 challan presented and had framed charge against the respondents. The interference by the revisional Court is, apparently, not justified and is by way of laborious efforts devoted by the Court, which would be beyond the purview of law at this stage. So far as the plea of jurisdiction to oust the petitioner is concerned, the same was required to be analysed in the light of law laid down by this Court in Gaganpreet's case (supra). This was a case where the marriage was solemnized at Delhi. Dowry articles were also entrusted at Delhi. The mal treatment and torture for demand of dowry also took place at Delhi but wife alongwith minor child came to reside at Chandigarh and had lodged a complaint with Chandigarh police demanding back dowry. The Chandigarh Police transferred the complaint to Delhi. This Court had set aside the order of the Chandigarh Police by making reference to Section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C. by observing that dowry articles are required to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence. Accordingly, Chandigarh Court, where the wife is residing would have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.The ratio of law laid down in Gaganpreet's case (supra), apparently, is attracted to the facts of the present case. In any case, on account of lack of jurisdiction, the charge could not have been set aside. Even if the Court at Sonipat was not having jurisdiction to try the offence, the complaint could have been transferred or liberty given to the petitioner to file the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It may need a notice that the plea of jurisdiction is always a mixed question of fact and law. The jurisdiction of the Court is generally based on the material and evidence placed before the Court. The prosecution would lead Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 6 evidence to show that the Court at Sonipat has jurisdiction in terms of law and legal provision and it would be for the Court to see if it can have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Otherwise, the Court would act in accordance with law. To be fair to counsel for the respondents, he has cited before me three judgments i.e. Y. Abraham Ajith and others versus Inspector of Police, Chennai and another (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100, Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi versus State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 394 and Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and another AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366. In Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 177 and 178 of Criminal Procedure Code. While appreciating word 'ordinarily', it is observed that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It is held that it is general rule and that said rule is subject to several exceptions. In the said case, no exception was found attracted and it was held that Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as no part of cause of action had arising under the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. The point of difference in the present case and one before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case after the final adjudication. Here the plea of jurisdiction has been taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. As already noticed, plea of jurisdiction being mixed question of fact and law should first be raised before the Court for it to decide before the higher Court considers the same. Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 7 In the Yogesh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the scope and ambit of powers of trial court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is viewed that if two views are equally possible and if the Judge is satisfied that evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, he would be fully within its rights to discharge the accused. It is observed that, at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or not. I am not able to understand as to how the ratio of law laid down, in this case, would be attracted to the facts of the present case. Here, the trial Court has framed the charges. The trial Court had not considered it to be a fit case for discharging the accused persons. It is the revisional Court, which has interfered with the order framing the charge. In Yogesh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the power of the trial Court to frame or not to frame the charge. If charge is not framed then the Court has to discharge the accused persons. The distinction has been drawn between suspicion and grave suspicion. There is no issue of difference between suspicion and grave suspicion here. The revisional Court has not interfered in the discretion exercised by the trial Court to frame charge on the ground that it was only a case of suspicion and not of great suspicion. Thus, the ratio of law, in this case, in my view would not attract to the facts of the present case. Similar issue arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prafulla's case (supra), which was primarily followed in Yogesh's case (supra). The impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The case will go back to the trial Court for further Criminal Misc. No. M- 863 of 2010 8 proceedings with the case. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.01.2012. December 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE