Cr.Misc. NO. M 10869 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 10869 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 22.4.2009 Nitin Kumar and another ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and another ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.125 dated 28.3.2009 u/s 406/498-A/34IPC registered at P.S. SGM Nagar, Faridabad and all the subsequent proceedings inter alia on the ground that the police or the courts at Faridabad will have no jurisdiction either to investigate the matter or to try the offences levelled against the petitioners on the ground of non availability of territorial jurisdiction if seen in context to the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the allegations in the FIR. The FIR has been registered at the instance of Manisha Ahuja against her husband Nitin Kumar, petitioner No.1 and his mother alleging that she was married to petitioner No.1 on 15.10.2004 at Delhi. A list of dowry articles (Annexure A) with the FIR had been furnished by the complainant. The husband of the complainant and his mother were not satisfied with the dowry articles. She was maltreated and was turned out of the matrimonial home after snatching her gold articles and dowry articles on 17.2.2009. She is at present staying with her Cr.Misc. NO. M 10869 of 2009 2 parents at Faidabad. The petitioners have refused to give the dowry articles even on the demand of the complainant and that they have misappropriated the same for their own use. On the basis of the above said allegations, FIR u/s 406/498- A/34 IPC has been registered. If the allegations in the FIR are seen in context to the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioners were required to return or account for the alleged dowry articles at the place where the complainant is residing at present i.e. in Faridabad, as such Faridabad can be a place of trial u/s 181(4) Cr.P.C. So far as offence u/s 498 A IPC is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 178(d) Cr.P.C., the said offence can be tried by a court, which will have a jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 406 IPC. A conjoint reading of Section 181 (4) and 178(d) Cr.P.C. indicates that the inquiry and trial of the offences, levelled against the petitioners, can be taken up by the police and Courts at Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Y Abraham Ajith and Ors v Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr JT 2004(6) SC 497. In the said case, the complainant and her husband originally resided at Nagercoil. Subsequently, the complainant shifted to Chennai. The complainant charged her husband with cruelty, breach of trust and demand of dowry. The complaint was filed in the Magistrate Court at Chennai. The complaint was entertained and the police was directed to investigate the matter. A petition for quashing of criminal proceedings was allowed on the ground that the Magistrate at Chennai had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai if seen in context to the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. Cr.Misc. NO. M 10869 of 2009 3 A perusal of the above said judgment indicates that the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., which are applicable in the present case were neither raised nor discussed in the said case, as such the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the ratio of the said judgment. Dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised certain other points for quashing of the FIR but if seen in context to the law laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors AIR 1992 SC 604, the said contentions do not fall within the parameters laid by the Supreme Court, as such these contentions are considered irrelevant for the adjudication of this case. Anything said in the order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners. April 22 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE