Criminal Misc. No.M-21801 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-21801 of 2008 Date of decision : 1.9.2008 Sukhvinder Kaur and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners are brother and sister-in-law (sister's husband) of the estranged husband of respondent no.2-Harpreet Kaur who lodged FIR No. 271 dated 19.8.2005 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. Charges under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC have already been framed against the petitioners who have applied for quashment of the FIR and also the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues, at the very set, that Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under reference for the simple reason that no cause of action had taken place at Patiala. The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be negatived. On the own showing of petitioners, the marriage between Criminal Misc. No.M-21801 of 2008 -2- **** Jagpal singh (brother of petitioner no. 1 Sukhvinder Kaur) and respondent no. 2 had taken place at Patiala. The dowry articles given at the time of marriage are averred to have been handed over at Patiala only. It cannot, thus, be said that the Courts at Patiala had no jurisdiction. The correctness or otherwise of the averment that dowry articles were handed over at Patiala shall, obviously, have to be gone into by the learned Trial Court at Patiala at the trial. The plea shall stand negatived accordingly. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel argues that there are no specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR and, thus, the continuation of the proceedings in purusance of the FIR amounts to abuse of process of law and the Court. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 321. The plea put forward on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived, it being oblivious of the fact that the FIR does indeed contain precise allegations against the petitioners. As would be evident from a perusal of para 5 of the application, there was a precise averment that petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy with a view to defraud respondent no.2/first informant. Further, in the course of para 8, the precise averment is that petitioner Sukhvinder Kaur and other members of her natal family had indicated dissatisfaction with the adequacy of the dowry brought by respondent. They taunted her by pointing out that she had not Criminal Misc. No.M-21801 of 2008 -3- **** even brought a Maruti Car in dowry. It is, then, averred in para no. 9 of the application that both these petitioners (accompanied by Jagpal Singh and his parents etc.) “came to the house of the parents of the petitioner at Patiala on 16.11.03 and asked the parents of the petitioner, “in the presence of the petitioner that they should pay a sum of Rs. one lac as the same was needed for getting the papers of the petitioner processed for immigration and also for her ticket.” It is also averred in para no. 10 of the application that the petitioners ( along with Jagpal Singh and latter's parents “visited the house of the parents of the petitioner at Patiala. Sh. Tara Singh, father of the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. one lac to Sh. Jagpal Singh as demanded by the aforesaid persons as a part of the dowry, who further delivered the same to his father Sh. Surjit Singh. Sh. Surjit Singh further passed on the amount to Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur who after counting the same delivered the same to Smt. Jaswant Kaur.” Further allegation, in the course of para 11 of the application is that “Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur and her husband generally visited at week's end to Ludhiana and also instigated the in- laws of the petitioner against her.” The following averments appear in para 11 of the application:- “Even Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur gave beatings to the petitioner, when the matter was brought to her notice.” It cannot, thus, be said that there are no precise allegations against the petitioners. The alleged feeble character of the averments cannot be gone into in the proceedings for quashment Criminal Misc. No.M-21801 of 2008 -4- **** by this Court. This Court has also to take cognizance of the fact that charges have already been framed in the case and the recording of the prosecution evidence is underway. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. September 01, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE