IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M M O No.14 of 2007. Reserved on 12.9. 2008. Date of Decision: 30.9.2008 _______________________________________________________ Ram Pal and another ….Petitioners Versus Sunita Kumari & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. The present petition has been preferred against the orders of summoning of respondents under sections 498-A & 406 IPC by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una (H.P.) in Case No.214-1/2003 and sought to quash and set aside the impugned order passed on 24.6.2004 In brief the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Sunita Kumari was married to accused Manoj Kumar resident of Ludhiana on 20.1.2003. After the marriage, respondent No.1 resided with her parents in the house of her in-laws at Ludhiana. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons started maltreating and harassing her for bringing in-sufficient dowry. Thus they started demanding Scooter and Washing Machine. The complainant along with her husband visited the house of her father at Amb in the month of February, 2003. He gave Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Rs.35,000/- to Manaoj Kumar for purchasing the scooter and washing machine. Thereafter, the petitioners insisted upon the complainant to bring Rs.1,50,000/- from her father as Manoj Kumar was to be sent to U.S.A. When the complainant contacted her father, he assured to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of one month, after selling a part of his land. Thereafter, the complainant came to know about the conspiracy being hatched against her that her husband was not going abroad but on receiving the money the respondents would turn her out from the matrimonial house. She informed about this conspiracy to her father and told him not to sell the land. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband Manoj Kumar visited the house of her father and demanded Rs.1,50,000/- but her father refused to pay this amount and then all the accused persons including the petitioner started giving beating and maltreating the complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons had planned to douse her in kerosene oil and set fire. All the accused persons allegedly assembled on 13.12.2003 at Ludhiana and started beating to the complainant. Thereafter, she ran away and reached in the house of her sister Sonia Devi, narrated the entire story to her and reported the matter to the police on 14.12.2003. Police told the complainant to bring her father to settle the matter. On 16.12.2003 she narrated the whole story to her father and he requested Sonia to inquire into the whole matter. Preliminary evidence was led and the learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the record, passed the following order: “24.6.2004 Present: Sh.Kamal Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel for the complainant. Heard. From the perusal of the complaint and statement of witnesses on oath there - 3 - appears sufficient reasons to proceed against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under section 498-A, 406 of I.P.C. read with section 34 of I.P.C. Since the demand was repeated within the jurisdiction of this Court and sum of Rs.35,000/- was received within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court would be having jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present complaint for the commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and also to try the offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C. in view of Section 181(4) of Cr.P.C. But since the offence punishable under section 323, 506, 120-B were not committed within the jurisdiction of this court, hence this court would be having no jurisdiction for the commission of these offences. More over there is no evidence of meeting of mend which is essential as laid down by Apex Court in Khear Singh vs State AIR 1988 S.C.1883 Let the accused be summoned for 11.8.04 on filing of list, PF and copies. Sd/- Addl. C. J. M.” The petitioners challenged the above orders, on the ground that the summoning order does not stand to judicial scrutiny qua them as there is no prima-facie case is made out against them nor the learned trial court has territorial jurisdiction to try and hear the matter. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. The petitioners have been summoned for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. There is neither any allegation nor evidence against them that they have committed the alleged offence within the territorial jurisdiction of Amb, Sub Division or for that matter Una District. The alleged torture is alleged to be at Ludhiana and the petitioners who are the parents of Manoj Kumar did not - 4 - demand, receive any amount or property within the jurisdiction of trial court or retained it, as per the provision of section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case the material placed before the learned trial court, does not justify the issue of process against the petitioner because the court below lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and hear the matter against the petitioners for the offences aforesaid. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and summoning order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, against the petitioners herein is hereby quashed and is set aside. Records of the learned trial court be returned forthwith. October 30, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) - 5 -