CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Amit Kumar Jain and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 185 dated 27.10.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Habouval, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), the order dated 24.02.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the basis of aforesaid FIR, vide order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana, the charge were framed against the CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 2 petitioners and they were ordered to be charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved with the above aforesaid order dated 24.02.2009, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge at Ludhiana. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ludhiana vide order dated 01.09.2010 dismissed the revision petition against the framing of charge under Section 406 IPC and 498-A IPC and partly accepted the revision petition of the petitioners while dropping the charge under the Dowry Prohibition Act. While challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana, framing the charge against the petitioners and the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in revision petition filed by the petitioners, learned counsel raised two fold arguments:- a) That as per Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence should be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It was further submitted that in the present case, the cause of action arose at Jaipur but FIR has been registered at Ludhiana and as such, the police station at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction for registration of a case and the learned Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain such criminal case which has been at the jurisdiction of Ludhiana and relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported as 2004(4) CRC (Criminal) 988. In support of his aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 3 petitioner relied on the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2009((2) RCR (Criminal) 956 and Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another reported as 2007 (1)RCR (Criminal) 513 and judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Jasjit Singh Bakshi and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported as 2008 (3)RCR(Criminal)170. b) That the matter has already been investigated by the DSP Ludhiana. The enquiry report has been accepted by the S.S.P. Ludhiana. The same does not show the involvement of the present petitioners. As such, criminal proceeding cannot be continued against them. Heard. Taking up the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence was committed at Ludhiana and therefore, the Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, is on the face of it, incorrect. The allegations against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Meaning thereby, there is demand of dowry as well as misappropriation of dowry articles on the part of the present petitioners. It is specifically stated in the FIR as under: - “That as the marriage is to take place at Jaipur on 06.12.2004, it was decided that the ring ceremony would be performed on 29.11.2004 at Ludhiana. After the ring ceremony was performed on 29.11.2004, Shri Balram Sahai and Smt. Asha, the parents of the complainant entrusted to Smt. Padma Jain two gold karas, a gold set consisting of haar with pendent, two gold ear rings, one gold ring and a diamond set belonging to the CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 4 complainant with an understanding that these ornaments being part of the istridhan of the complainant be taken to Jaipur and after 06.12.2004 i.e. after the marriage as and when the complainant will join the matrimonial house being their daughter in law these ornaments will be returned to her as being her exclusive property.” Thus, some of the dowry articles being part of istridhan of the complainant are stated to have been delivered at Ludhiana. The aforesaid FIR further goes on to read as under:- That on 19.12.2004, the complainant and Amit Jain visited Mata Vaishano Devi at Jammu after the marriage. On our return from Jammu, the parents of the complainant came to Railway Station Ludhiana on early morning of 22.12.2004 and besides giving gifts and shagun to both of us, the parents of the complainant as a good gesture handed over 1 pendent gold set, gold chain and a gold ring total weighing 45 grams to Amit Jain on behalf of the complainant which the complainant is to give to her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in- law as new year gift. With an understanding that Amit Jain, on the new year day, the complainant will give these articles to her parents-in-law and brother-in-law from the parents of the complainant side as a new year gift. But to great surprise of the complainant when on 01.01.2005, the complainant asked for these articles entrusted to Amit Jain on behalf of her in-laws, he refused to return back the same to the complainant at the time or thereafter to her parents till today and thus has misappropriated those gold ornaments and thereby committed breach of trust. From the above, it is clear that part of the allegations pertains to Ludhiana. The articles of dowry which have been misappropriated were CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 5 delivered at Ludhiana. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus:- 178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. It is apparent from the reading of the above Section that in case offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, the allegations can be enquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over one of the local areas. The facts in the present case show that part of the allegations qua entrustment of dowry is at Ludhiana. As such, the aforesaid judgements referred to by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Taking up the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was enquired into by the police and the allegations were found to be false, has no merit in view of the fact that challan was subsequently filed and the charges have been framed against the petitioners. The order framing of charges was challenged by the petitioners in a revision petition. The revision petition was partly accepted vide order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 6 Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act have been ordered to be dropped, whereas, framing of charge under Section 406, 498-A IPC has been upheld. There are specific allegations qua entrustment of dowry articles which the present petitioners have refused to return as also specific allegations of misappropriation and cruelty. It is well settled proposition of law that the charge can be framed even if prima facie case is made out. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the orders impugned herein. Further, it is admitted that the revision petition filed by the present petitioners is partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, the charge under Dowry Prohibition Act have been ordered to be dropped, whereas, revision petition against charge under Section 406, 498-A IPC has already been dismissed. It is well settled proposition of law that second revision petition under Section 437(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. The present petition is nothing but a second revision under the garb of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although, petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred but the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the circumstances can be exercised only to stop miscarriage of justice or the misuse of the process of law. No such special or peculiar facts have been pointed out to enable this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed in revision petition. No other argument was raised. CRM No. M 28002 of 2010 7 In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 22,2010 mohan