Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.9.2010 Bharti Sharma …Petitioner Versus Vikas Sharma and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Bharti Sharma was married with respondent No.1- Vikas Sharma on 8.10.2000 at Jalandhar. Respondent No.2 Parshotam Lal Sharma, respondent No.3 Mohini Sharma, and respondent No.4 Vipen Sharma are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of petitioner Bharti Sharma. The petitioner had instituted a complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, on 20.9.2006, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. After the preliminary evidence was led by the complainant, the accused/respondents were summoned to stand trial by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 1.9.2007. They were summoned for an offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 2 Aggrieved against the order of summoning, the accused/respondents have preferred the revision petition in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide his impugned order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P1), the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has set aside the summoning order and discharged the accused of the offence. The present petition is filed against the impugned order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P1), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the revision petition, preferred by the accused/respondents, was accepted, the summoning order was set aside and they were discharged of the offence. A perusal of the summoning order (Annexure P2) reveals that in the complaint, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1-Vikas Sharma on 8.10.2000 in Prince Palace, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar, by way of Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and at that time her mother and maternal uncle had spent an amount of ` 5,00,000/-. The list of dowry articles, given to the accused/respondents, was attached with the complaint. It was further averred that since the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles, they started taunting the complainant/petitioner on one pretext or the other. Due to their greed and unsatisfied with the dowry articles, so received in the marriage, the accused/respondents were demanding an Alto Car. Furthermore, from the wedlock of the complainant/petitioner and respondent No.1, a daughter named Ashima was born. Accused No.1 was a drug addict. All the respondents were harassing, maltreating and committing cruelty upon the petitioner and Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 3 were demanding dowry. In the month of May 2005, the complainant/petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house after severe beatings were given. All the dowry articles have been retained by the accused. Even after the demand, the dowry articles were not returned. In preliminary evidence, the complainant herself examined as CW.1, Raksha Sharma as CW.2 and Raman Sharma as CW.3. After perusing the complaint and the preliminary evidence led, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, after holding as under, summoned the accused/respondents to stand trial:- “...7. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of preliminary evidence led by the complainant and other material placed on record, I am of the view that the complainant was married to accused No.1 who stated to be in habitual of drug addict and other psychotropic substances and the husband of complainant i.e. accused No.1 is under the influence of his parents i.e. other accused Nos.2 & 3 along with other accused No.4 who is unmarried brother of accused No.1 and they turned out the complainant from the matrimonial house after giving her beatings and all the dowry articles were kept by them which are the Istri Dhan of the complainant and in this way the accused persons are guilty of the offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC for having maltreating and for committing breach of trust in Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 4 respect of dowry articles...” The above said order of summoning was assailed by the accused by filing the revision petition. Learned counsel for the accused/respondents/revisionist, in the Revisional Court, had raised an argument that neither the dowry articles nor any money was entrusted by the complainant to the accused nor any cruelty was alleged to have been committed upon the petitioner, at Ferozepur. It was urged that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 had taken place at Jalandhar. The dowry articles were also entrusted at Jalandhar, hence the Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The Revisional Court has accepted this argument and held that the Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to try the offence. The reasoning adopted by the Revisional Court is noticed as under:- “...9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the file. The perusal of the file shows that the revision petitioners are husband, parents-in- law and brother-in-law of the respondent/complainant. Further perusal of the file shows that marriage of the respondent/complainant with Vikas Sharma, petitioner No.1 was solemnized at Jalandhar. The alleged dowry articles were entrusted to the revision petitioner/accused at Jalandhar and the alleged cruelty was also caused to the complainant by the accused at Jalandhar. Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 5 There is no allegation in the complaint that any demand of dowry was raised at Ferozepur or any dowry article was entrusted at Ferozepur or any cruelty was committed by the petitioners to the respondent/complainant at Ferozepur. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the learned CJM has got no jurisdiction to try this case at Ferozepur. Even the perusal of the complaint shows that the revision petitioner subjected cruelty to respondent Bharti Sharma at Jalandhar. So, the learned CJM at Ferozepur has got no jurisdiction to try the complaint under Sections 406/498-A of the IPC. In this regard reliance may be placed upon Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that harassment of wife by husband at place 'N' on account of dowry, wife came to live at Chennai, therefore, not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry. Complaint under section 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Chennai Court has no jurisdiction as it is not continuing offence within meaning of Section 178(C) Cr.P.C. Reliance in Balwinder Kumar Sharma's case (Supra) has also been wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that allegations of cruelty made in the complaint relate to Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 6 the period when the complainant stayed in her in- law's house at Faridabad. Police of Sonepat had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter complaint quashed with liberty to file at proper place. Reliance in this regard has also been placed upon Hari Prem Rastogi's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that acts of cruelty committed at Meerut-Chandigarh Court has no jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. an offence has to be tried at a place where it was committed. Section 498-A does not fall under any exception given in Cr.P.C. ...” A Division Bench of this Court, to which I was the party, in Gaganpreet Kaur v. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh and Others 2009 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 394 considered the effect of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. and held that the Court at the place, where the accused are required to return the dowry articles, is also have a jurisdiction to try the complaint. It will be apposite here to reproduce para No.8 of the above cited judgment:- “...8. It is not disputed that the petitioner a long 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 7 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 8 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 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 xxx xxx xxx xxx 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 9 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." It is also relevant to refer to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of Cr. P. C. which read thus: "181. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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 matter of the offence was received, retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person." The Revisional Court, for setting aside the summoning order and discharging the accused of the offence, has relied upon Y.Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police Chennai and Another 2004 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 988. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the Court had not considered the effect of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. in the above said two judgments. Similarly, the judgments relied upon by the Revisional Court had not noticed Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. This Court has no hesitation to hold that even though the dowry articles, which are stated to be istri dhan, were entrusted and received at Jalandhar but on demand, the same were required to be Criminal Misc. No. M-17967 of 2008 10 returned or accounted for by the accused persons at Ferozepur. The Court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction to try the offence. Since the complaint has been instituted at Ferozepur where the accused were bound to return and account for the istri dhan, the Court at Ferozepur has the jurisdiction to try the offence. As a result of the discussion, made above, the present petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P1), passed by the Revisional Court, is set aside and the order dated 1.9.2007 (Annexure P2), passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, whereby the accused/respondents were summoned to stand trial is upheld. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, shall proceed with the complaint, in accordance with the provisions of law, to try the offenders. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 28, 2010 “DK” Refer to Reporter: Yes