IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-11597 of 2009 Date of decision: 28th May, 2009 Jitender and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 24 dated 27.01.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani, District Bhiwani under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC. A further prayer has been made that proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR be stayed. Manju respondent No.2 estranged wife was married with Jitender petitioner No.1 according to religious rites on 25th November, 1996. She has lodged the impugned FIR against her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, two sisters and two brothers of her husband. In the present case, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) has been submitted. Prosecution has gathered evidence. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded Criminal Misc. No. M-11597 of 2009 and the documents have also been collected, from which incriminating evidence against the petitioners can be deciphered. In the present petition, only FIR has been reproduced. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents to be relied by the prosecution are withheld from this Court. Even otherwise, once prosecution has gathered the incriminating evidence and case is fixed for framing of the charge, all arguments raised in this petition can be raised before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. The Court can discharge the accused or charge them relying upon the evidence gathered by the prosecution. Therefore, this is not an appropriate stage to cause interference, when the trial Court is to examine validity of the charges to be projected by the prosecution. In the present case, Mr. Sanjay Vashisth appearing for the petitioners has raised three arguments: (i) That the marriage was performed in Baghpat and parties, before they separated, resided at Baghpat, therefore, all allegations of cruelty falling within the ambit of section 498-A IPC have been committed in U.P. and the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction. It has not been alleged that what are the dowry articles and whether they are required to be returned at Bhiwani. (ii) That the present complaint is an abuse of process of law, as all family members, including two unmarried sisters and two brothers of the husband have been arrayed as accused. (iii) That the complainant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and another petition under The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and thirdly husband has filed a divorce petition in U.P., for transfer of which the aggrieved wife has filed a transfer 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-11597 of 2009 petition in the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, impugned FIR has been lodged to harass petitioners. To fortify first submission, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another’ 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 988; ‘Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another’ 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 513 and ‘Bhura Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan and another’ 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 761. I have perused all these three judgments. Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. reads as under: “181 (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired 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 the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.” A perusal of section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. would reveal that the investigating agency has found that offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. Natural corollary thereof is that istri dhan has been misappropriated, or there is a breach of trust. Istri dhan is required to be accounted for or returned at the place where the aggrieved person is residing. A perusal of first para of the complaint reveals that it has been stated that at present complainant is residing at Naya Bazar, near Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the accused to account for istri dhan where the wife is residing. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt in the judgments relied, specifically for offence under Section 406 IPC. The judgments relied have taken into 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-11597 of 2009 consideration Section 498-A IPC and thrust of the judgments relied is regarding the jurisdiction qua the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The judgments under Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., which specifically deal with this aspect, have not been cited. In para 6 of the complaint, it has been specifically stated as under: “The accused persons kept with them all istridhan of the complainant and since then the complainant is staying with her brother at Bhiwani. Brother and father of the complainant visited village Ghatoli alongwith Panchayat twice or thrice but the accused persons did not let the complainant live their and that they thrown her out from there and threatened her that if she returns to them in future, they would kill her.” Parties to the litigation are today present in Court. An attempt was made by the counsel for the parties to amicably resolve the dispute, whereas wife has expressed her willingness to join matrimonial home. Same has not been accepted by the family of the husband. In para 4 of the petition, it has been stated that the accused used to taunt and abuse the complainant for insufficiency of dowry. This Court cannot comment what has been stated in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the complaint is not encyclopedia. It is only initiation of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, merits of the arguments raised before this Court shall be considered by the trial Court at appropriate stage. Truth and veracity of the allegations cannot be adjudged in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Disputed questions of fact also cannot be examined. Petitioners will be at liberty to raise all arguments available to them under law, before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. Since petitioners are residents of Tehsil and District Baghpat, therefore, Jatinder accused petitioner No.1 husband will continue to appear before the trial 4 Criminal Misc. No. M-11597 of 2009 Court. However, taking into consideration relationship of other accused, personal appearance of petitioners No.2 to 7 before the trial Court is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. The litigation expenses deposited in terms of order dated 29th April, 2009 be disbursed by the Registry to the complainant estranged wife. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 28, 2009 rps 5