Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 Date of decision : September 01, 2009 Om Parkash Angrish and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GC Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG Punjab Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 filed by Om Parkash Angrish and Nirmal Angrish and Criminal Misc. No. M-23271 of 2009, filed by Hemant Angrish, all seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 53 dated 1.6.2009, under sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the case file. Petitioners Om Parkash Angrish and Nirmal Angrish are Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 2 parents-in-law of the complainant whereas petitioner Hemant Angrish is husband of the complainant. The allegations have been made by the complainant in detail in lengthy FIR. The allegations are that the dowry articles meant for exclusive use by complainant were taken by the petitioners and were mis-appropriated and they refused to return the same on demand. There are also serious allegations of beatings and continuous harassment. Demands were made by the petitioners. Some demands were even met. In March, 2009, complainant's father paid Rs 7 lacs and in April, 2009, complainant's father paid another Rs 10 lacs but the demand of petitioners was for Rs 25 lacs. Panchayats were also convened but to no effect. Complainant's husband allegedly had some extra marital relationship with a lady. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that police at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction because only marriage was performed at Jalandhar whereas main occurrence as per allegations in the FIR took place at Ludhiana i.e. in matrimonial home. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others versus State of Punjab and others, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 956 and judgment of this Court in the case Suresh Kumar versus State of Haryana, 1989(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 73. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that Jalandhar police has territorial jurisdiction because the marriage took place at Jalandhar and also some other incidents took place at Jalandhar and even the complainant was left at Jalandhar by the husband. In Bhiranwan Devi versus Mrs. Aruna, 1999(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 35, cited by learned counsel Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 3 for the petitioners himself, marriage had taken place at Patiala and matrimonial home was at Bathinda. It was held that Patiala court has the territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that limitation for taking cognizance of offences under sections 498-A and 406 IPC is three years and therefore, the incident which took place more than three years prior to the lodging of the FIR are time barred. However, in judgment of this Court in the case of Hussan Lal versus State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 806, it was held that offence under section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence and the limitation for offence under section 406 IPC would commence when the accused refused to return the dowry articles. Similarly in the case of Bhiranwan Devi (supra), it was held that limitation for offence under section 406 IPC would begin from the date when demand was made and the accused refused to return the dowry articles. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon judgments of this Court in the case Harsh Vardhan Arora versus Smt. Kavita Arora, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 499 and Kishan Sharma versus State of Haryana, 1989 (2) RCR (Criminal) 13, which, however, relate to quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited the following judgments of this Court:- “(1) Anil Mehra versus State of U.T. Chandigarh 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 307 (2) Gian Chand versus State of Haryana 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 139 (3) Lt. Col. Bhupinder Singh Chimney versus Union Territory, Chandigarh 1995 (2) RCR (Criminal) 610 Criminal Misc. No. M-21992 of 2009 4 (4) Ajay Duggal versus State of Haryana through Superintendent of Police, District Panchkula and others 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 329”. These are judgments on facts of the said cases wherein anticipatory bail was granted keeping in view the facts therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners also emphatically contended that the complainant had been operating bank locker which was jointly in the name of the complainant and her mother-in-law and therefore, it cannot be said that ornaments of the complainant were with the petitioners. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Vijay Kumar contended that dowry articles are yet to be recovered. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The FIR has been lodged against seven accused. However, anticipatory bail has been granted to the remaining four accused. The petitioners before this Court being husband and parents-in-law are said to be the main accused from whom dowry articles are also yet to be recovered. There are serious allegations against all of them. Keeping in view the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be fit case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 01, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'