Criminal Misc. No.76553-M of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.76553-M of 2006 Date of decision : 17.9.2008 Jaipal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No.73449-M of 2006 Pooja .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 76553-M of 2006 None for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 73449-M of 2006 Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana **** S. D. ANAND, J. These are two petitions( Criminal Misc. No. 76533-M of 2006 and Criminal Misc. No. 73449-M of 2006) which have been filed to obtain the quashment of FIR No. 155 dated 14.7.2006 under Sections 406/498- A/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P- 1). Petitioner Jai Pal ( in Criminal Misc. No. 76533-M of 2006) is Criminal Misc. No.76553-M of 2006 -2- **** father-in-law of his estranged daughter-in-law Pooja/respondent no.2. Criminal Misc. No. 73449-M of 2006 has been filed by respondent No.2- Pooja to obtain cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide order dated 29.9.2006. In the petition filed by Jai Pal, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police of Bahadurgarh (District Jhajjar) have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter in view of the fact that paternal family of respondent no.2 belongs to District Sonepat. The marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnised in the area of District Sonepat. Whatever cause of action is averred to have occurred, had taken place in the area of District Sonepat. In that view of things, the argument proceeds, the police of Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. The argument raised thereby is that respondent no. 2 has made an abortive endeavour to confer jurisdiction upon the police of District Jhajjar by averring that that she is residing with her maternal uncle in the area of village Sidipur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. It is also argued that the dowry-related offence is not a continuing cause of action and it would be inferred to have taken place at the matrimonial house only. Reliance, in support of the averment, was placed upon Y. Abraham Ajith and ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and anr 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 988. The plea put forward on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. It is apparent from the FIR itself that no cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of District Jhajjar. The allegations pertaining to dowry-related torture, pertain to District Sonepat. It is not Criminal Misc. No.76553-M of 2006 -3- **** even the allegation that respondent no.2 had been, at any point of time, approached in the area of District Jhajjar to satisfy any dowry demand. The reliance, placed by the counsel for the petitioner upon Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra), is appropriate. In that case, the allegations by the wife was that she had been subjected to dowry-related harassment at a particular place. Thereafter, the wife went over to live at Chennai. There was not even an allegation that any demand for dowry had been made at Chennai. It was under those circumstances that the Apex Court held that Courts at Chennai had no jurisdiction because the allegations did not pertain to a continuing offence, within the meaning of Section 178 ( c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of fore-going discussion, the Criminal Misc. No. 76553-M of 2006 filed by Jai Pal shall stand allowed. It is held that the police of District Jhajjar has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Insofar as the Criminal Misc. No.73449-M of 2006 is concerned, it is evident from the record that anticipatory bail had been allowed to respondents no. 2 to 4 therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. If the petitioner herein has a grievance, she ought to have recourse to the remedy available to her before that Court. No ground to cancel the anticipatory bail has, even otherwise, been made out in the circumstances of the case. The Criminal Misc. No.73449-M of 2006 shall stand dismissed. September 17, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE