Crl.Misc. No.M-20458 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-20458 of 2011. Date of decision: July 11, 2011. Neeraj Kumar. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner is alleged to have slapped, maltreated his wife, demanded dowry and committed unnatural offence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had stayed in the matrimonial house only for 15 days and thereafter gone for some examination but did not return. The medical evidence gathered Annexure P-3, does not substantiate her allegations of unnatural offence. Co-accused of the petitioner i.e., his family members have been granted the concession of interim temporary bail by this Court and their case is fixed for 14.07.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the case has been registered at Kurukshetra whereas the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at Amritsar, . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-20458 of 2011 as such, police at Kurukshetra, will not have any jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon Y. Abraham Ajith and ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and anr. 2004 (8) SCC 100, wherein in a case of harassment of wife at place N, on account of dowry, the wife having gone to Chennai and filed a petition at Chennai was held to be bad. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. The allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner cannot be treated to be same as that of the allegations against co-accused. There does not exist any parity with the case of co-accused of the petitioner. I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction in context to the statutory provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. wherein it has been provided that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of offence was received or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons. The dowry articles which were allegedly misappropriated were prima facie required to be retuned at the place where the complainant at present is residing. Without expression of any opinion on merits, at this stage, the authorities at Kurukshetra, prima facie, seem to have jurisdiction. However, it is observed that if ultimately after the investigation the Investigating Agency arrives at a conclusion on the . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-20458 of 2011 basis of material that it does not have any jurisdiction in context to any of the statutory provisions, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the investigation proceedings before the appropriate forum at opportune time. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner or the other co-accused, in any manner. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 11, 2011. rka . . . 3