Avtar Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

S.K. Jain, J.—Marriage between Avtar Singh and Sunita Rani was solemnized at Panipat on 11th of September, 1989. Unfortunately, they fell out. At the instance of Sunita Rani, First Information Report No. 44, under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code, was recorded on May 6, 1990, in Police Station Division No. 2, Ludhiana. The accused-Petitioners herein, filed Criminal Misc. No. 14536-M of 1991, Avtar Singh and five Ors. v. State of Punjab and Sunita Rani. Said petition was heard and decided on January 6, 1992, by this Court and the following order was passed :-

"Disposed of with the remarks that the petitioners may take up all the pleas including those taken up by them in this petition, before the trial Court before framing of the charge. If need be, they may approach this Court later on."

Learned trial Court then charged all the accused under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code, vide order of July 22, 1992. The correctness and propriety of the said order has been challenged in the present revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.

First argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken at their face value, even then the cruelty, if at all. was caused to Sunita Rani at the bands of the petitioners at Panipat and now at Ludhiana. Therefore, neither the First Information Report could be lodged at Ludhiana, nor the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, had jurisdiction over the matter. In order to appreciate this argument, I have gone through the First Information Report; Perusal thereof shows that although the perental house of the complainant-wife was at Ludhiana yet her parents had gone to Panipat to perform her marriage. The matrimonial home of the complainant is at Panipat. After the marriage, first, petitioner and the complainant resided as husband and wife of Panipat. Following portion of para No. 5 of the the First Information Report is very much relevant :--

"The complainant said that the parents of the complainant have already spent a huge amount of her marriage, so she is not going to demand such a huge amount from her parents on which all the accused gave merciless beating to the complainant and she complainant was brought to Ludhiana in the month of November, 1989 , and she was compelled to demand a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. Under compulsion the complainant asked her parents to give a sum of Rs. 50.000/-."

From the above allegations, it is clear that the complainant was treated with cruelty and harassed at Panipat as also at Ludhiana. The incident of giving beating to the complainant at Panipat and subsequently taking her to Ludhiana in November, 1989. and compelling her to demand a sum of Rs. 50.000/- from her parents, are part of the same transaction. Therefore, the Court at Ludhiana certainly had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 498A, Indian Penal Code. In holding the above view, I am fortified by the ratio laid down in Smt. Basant Kaur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (1) R C R 204.

Now on to the offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the First Information Report and the charge sheet were liable to be quashed became there is no specific allegation that any particular article of dowry had been entrusted to any particular accused petitioner. Para No. 2 of the First Information Report contains the relevant allegations, which are in the following terms :-

"That at the time of marriage the parents of the complainant gave articles mentioned in the annexures attached which is Strldhan of the complainant and entrusted the same to all the accused with a clear understanding at Ludhiana to them that these articles are Stridhan of the complainant and they should hand over these articles of the complainant on reaching her matrimonial house at Panipat."

Perusal of the above portion of the First Information Report shows that there are no specific allegations that any particular articles were entrusted to any particular accused. Avtar Singh petitioner No. 1 is the husband; Darshan Singh and Narain Kaur petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law; Harjinder Singh alias Pinku petitioner No. 4 is Devar, Meenu petitioner No. 5 is the Nanad of the complainant Sunita Rani, and Janak Raj petitioner No. 6 is not related to any member of the family. The general and vague ailegation made in the first information report regarding entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused-petitioners would not be sufficient taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 406, Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 22-7-1992 cannot be sustained so far as the framing of the charge u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is concerned and the same is set aside to that extent. However, part of the impugned order vide which charge u/s 498A, Indian Penal Code, has been framed against the petitioners is upheld.

This petition is partly accepted.

Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed.