Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.01.2011 Akshita Goel ….Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jaswant Singh, J Present revision petition filed by the complainant-wife under Section 401 Cr.P.C is directed against order dated 9.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide which revision petition filed by respondent No.2-Vikas Goel (husband) was accepted and order dated 3.10.2008 passed by learned CJM, Panchkula framing charges against him under sections 406/498-A/506 IPC was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court while observing that the complainant-petitioner ought to have pursued her remedy at Bhiwani or at Hyderabad where the offence is alleged to have taken place and the courts at Panchkula have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and to try the same. Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #2# Brief facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that Ring Ceremony of the petitioner-Akshita Goel and respondent No.2-Vikas Goel was performed at Hotel K.C Cross Road, Sector 10, Panchkula on 22.2.2004 and their marriage was solemnized on 22.4.2004 at Bhiwani. The petitioner-complainant was allegedly working at Gurgaon before her marriage and she is alleged to have left her job on the asking of her husband-respondent No.2. It is also alleged that the complainant-petitioner stayed in her matrimonial home at Bhiwani for some time and then moved to Secunderabad, where a male child was born out of the wedlock on 20.7.2005. It is stated that after the son was born, the maltreatment and demands of cash and more dowry by respondent No.2-Vikas Goel (husband) and her family members increased to an unbearable extent and ultimately resulting into the petitioner-complainant coming back to her parental home at Panchkula on 5.4.2007 and lodging of FIR No.227 dated 12.7.2007 under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC, Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. In the FIR (reproduced in the grounds of instant revision petition), the repeated specific instances of harassment and beatings on account of bringing insufficient dowry/not meeting out fresh demands of cash by specific members of her in-laws family soon after the marriage till the date of leaving the matrimonial home by the complainant-petitioner have been fully detailed. After investigation, the challan before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Panchkula was presented and thereafter charges framed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide order dated 3.10.2008 (P.1). Aggrieved against the order (P.1) passed by the learned Chief Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #3# Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula framing charges, the husband-respondent No.2 filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula thereby setting aside the aforesaid order dated 3.10.2008 (P.1). Hence, the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C by the complainant-wife. Learned counsel contends that the learned revisional court has wrongly set aside the order dated 3.10.2008 while holding that the courts at Panchkula have no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is further contended that part of cause of action for an offence under Section 406 IPC had arisen at Panchkula as some dowry articles were handed over to respondent No.2-Vikas Goel and his family members at Panchkula at the time of Ring Ceremony on 22.2.2004 and in view of Section 181 Cr.P.C, Panchkula Courts have fully territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter in controversy but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned state counsel very fairly stated that he has no objection in case the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is allowed because the Panchkula Police has already investigated the matter and submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and it will be in the interest of justice if the courts at Panchkula are allowed to proceed further in the matter once the charges have already been framed vide order dated 3.10.2008. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argues that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order of the trial Court since the Panchkula courts had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #4# record, I find that the present petition deserves to be allowed. It is not disputed that the petitioner-complainant was/is resident of Sector 12, Panchkula. It is also not in dispute that the ring ceremony of the complainant-petitioner with respondent No.2-husband was solemnized at Hotel K.C Cross Road at Sector 10, Panchkula in the presence of family members of both the parties. It is also not disputed that an FIR No.227 dated 12.7.2007 under Sections 406/498-A/323/34 IPC was got registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula against respondent No.2-Vikas Goel and his family members and that after investigation of the case, challan was also presented before the competent court at Panchkula only against the husband-respondent No.2 and the parents and two sisters were kept in column No.2 and that after hearing both the sides, charges under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC have been framed against respondent No.2-husband to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It would be relevant to reproduce Sub Section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus: “181. Place of trial in case of certain offences committing- (1) to (3) xx xxx xxx (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 persons. (5) xx xxxx” (emphasis supplied) In the present case, it is specifically alleged that the ring ceremony has taken place at Hotel K.C Cross Road, Sector 10, Panchkula and certain articles of dowry including cash of Rs.5 lac were handed over to Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #5# respondent No.2-husband and his family members at Panchkula on 22.2.2004 and as such the dowry article was received by the accused at Panchkula as the ring ceremony is the part and parcel of a hindu marriage and is very basis and foundation for solemnization of the marriage. Therefore, the dowry articles having been received by the accused at Panchkula, which is now being alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused, in view of the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C, which provides that the offence can be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the part of the property, which is the subject of the offence was received would, in my view, vest the courts at Panchkula, the required jurisdiction. There is another angle to the issue of jurisdiction of court at Panchkula. It is amply clear that as per the ingredient of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C, for an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, the matter may be inquired or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property was required to be returned. In the present case, the complainant has sought that the dowry articles, which have been misappropriated by the accused should be returned to her at Panchakula, where she is residing in her parental home as the same have been misappropriated and that amounts to an offence under Section 406 IPC. Hence, the other ingredient i.e “required to be returned” besides receipt of the misappropriated dowry articles are fulfilled in the present case and as such the learned trial Court at Panchkula is vested with the jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 406 IPC and in somewhat similar case, a Division Bench of this Court reported as Gaganpreet Kaur v. Senior Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh and others 2009(1) Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #6# RCR (Criminal) 394 has also held that the courts, where the wife is residing, would have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Relevant paragraph 8 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “It is not disputed that the petitioner along with her minor child is residing at Chandigarh though the marriage was solemnized at Delhi and dowry articles were entrusted at Delhi and that the maltreatment or torture for demand of dowry were raised. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction on the Court where the goods entrusted are to be returned. In view of the said fact, the dowry articles entrusted to the husband and/or his family members are required to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence. Therefore, Chandigarh, where the wife is residing would have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said issue has been examined in extenso by a Single Bench of this Court in Samarat Kaushik and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Shiv Dayal Arora and another v. Smt Renu Arora, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 10. In Samarat Kaushik's case (supra), it was held to the following effect: “In the present case, we are concerned with criminal breach of trust of Stridhan-property. When articles are given by way of gifts to a bride at the time of marriage, no one can contemplate that a situation would arise in future when a demand for return of stridhan property from the husband or his other relations would be made and in the event of articles not being returned, a criminal prosecution would be launched. In fact at the time of marriage, every one wishes and prays that the new couple would lead along and happy married life. Therefore, the existence or coming into being of a prior agreement of even understanding that in the event of break up of marriage or for some unforeseen circumstances, the articles given by way of gifts would be required to be returned at a particular place is an almost impossible situation. The relations and friends who give gifts to the bride would shudder at the very idea that contingency may arise from the husband or his other relations. Therefore, so far as an offence of criminal breach of trust regarding stridhan property is concerned, there cannot be Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #7# any prior agreement for return thereof at a particular place. If the last clause of sub-section is interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned counsel it will become redundant in so far as the offence of criminal breach of trust of stridhan property is concerned. Xxx xxx xxx Therefore, in order to give full meaning and sense to the last part of sub-section (4) of Section 181, it will be proper to hold that without there being any prior agreement to that effect the Court at the place where the property is required to be returned will also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the dowry articles were entrusted and received by the accused at Panchkula and the same are required to be returned to the complainant at Panchkula as undisputedly she is residing at Panchkula at her parental home. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C and the law laid down by this Court in Gaganpreet Kaur's case (supra), Panchkula Court is having the jurisdiction to try and decide the matter in controversy. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula is set aside and the trial Court at Panchkula is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law from the stage of passing of order dated 3.10.2008. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.3.2011. January 05, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE Crl.R.No.915 of 2009 #8#