Brij Lal vs State of Haryana

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR No. 182 dated April 3, 1990, under Sections 406 and 498A IPC registered at Police Station Ambala City.

Petitioner No. 1 was married to complainant respondent No. 3 on May 8, 1989, at Ambala City. Petitioner No. 2 is mother, petitioner No. 3 is sister and petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are brothers of petitioner No. 1.

In the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 it is alleged that at the time of marriage various articles were given to her in dowry, which are enumerated in the FIR itself. On May 17, 1989, when the complainant went back to her matrimonial home accused 3 and 4 (petitioners 2 and 3) teased her for bringing less dowry and demanded more articles in dowry. Accused 1, 3 and 4 (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) demanded amount of her salary previous to the marriage as part of dowry. On the death of her uncle she was not allowed to go to her parental home. At that time accused 1 and 3 (petitioners 1 and 2) illtreated her. Accused 1 and 3 (petitioners 1 and 2) again demanded whole of the salary since her employment. When she declined accused 2, 5 and 6 (petitioners 4, 6 and 5) took the complainant by arms, pushed her into a room and bolted the room. She was not given any food on June 8, 1989. After many requests she was allowed to come out. On that very evening accused 1, 2 and 4 (petitioners 1, 4 and 3) turned her out of the matrimonial home in three clothes. Since then she is residing with her parents at Ambala. Accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 (petitioners 1, 4, 6 and 5) treated her with utmost cruelty. She requested accusedpetitioner No. 1 to return her dowry articles but he declined. It is also averred in the petition that the dowry articles were entrusted to accused 1, 3 and 4 (petitioner 1, 2 and 3). On these allegations, this FIR is registered under Sections 406/498A IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashment of the same on the ground that there is no allegation of entrustment or breach of trust, and, secondly, the Ambala Court has no jurisdiction to try these offences, which were committed in complainant''s matrimonial home at Hansi District Hisar. In support of this contention, petitioners'' learned Counsel relied on Ravinder Kumar Taneja and others v. Anjana Rani, 1996(3) RCC 107.

Respondents'' learned counsel, relying on Jiwni and others v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) RCR 710 ; V.P. Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 261 and Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 290 , submitted that the marriage articles were entrusted to the accused persons/petitioners at Ambala at the time of marriage. These dowry articles were taken by them to Hansi in complainant''s matrimonial home. Thereafter since the dowry articles are not returned to the complainant, Ambala Court has jurisdiction to try these offences under Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. They also contended that since the offence under Section 406 IPC is triable by Ambala Court, even the offence under Section 498A IPC is also triable by Ambala Court because both these offences were committed during the course of one transaction.

In V.P. Singh''s case (supra) the marriage was celebrated at Lucknow. The husband and wife lived in Delhi where she was harassed for demand of dowry and was given beatings also. Wife came to Chandimandir to reside with her parents. Husband demanded more dowry articles and gave beatings to her at Chandimandir also. FIR was lodged at Chandigarh. A single Bench of this Court held that it may be possible to show during trial that offence was partly committed where wife was residing.

In Sultan Singh''s case (surpa) wife left matrimonial home and came to her parental house at Jhajjar. FIR under Sections 406 and 498A IPC was lodged at Jajjar regarding misappropriation of dowry articles. The question was whether Jhajjar Court has territorial jurisdiction to try these offences. A Single Bench of this Court held that jurisdiction is to be seen on the basis of allegations made in FIR. If any part of offence is committed within local limits of the Court where the case is pending, the Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and try the case.

In Jiwni''s case (supra) the same point was again raised. In that case the marriage was solemnised at Safidon and dowry articles were handed over at Safidon. Later on these dowry articles were misappropriated by the accused persons. Acts of cruelty were committed on bride at Rohtak in her matrimonial home. Complaint was lodged under Sections 406, 498A, 323 and 504 IPC at Safidon. Jurisdiction of Safidon Court was assailed. The Court held that offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 406 IPC committed at Rohtak are in the same chain of offences under Section 406 IPC committed at Safidon. The learned Judge relied on Sultan Singh''s case (supra).

In Ravinder Kumar Taneja''s case (supra) also the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was assailed. In that case also complaint was lodged under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. A Single Bench of this Court held that offence under Section 498A IPC would be committed when the husband or relative of the husband of the woman in question subjects the woman to cruelty. Respondent was subjected to cruelty while she was at Delhi and that was within territorial jurisdiction of a Court situated at Delhi. On this premise the learned Judge held that Court at Sonepat lacks territorial jurisdiction over the alleged act of cruelty. Hence the complaint was quashed. Inthe said case, complaint was filed only under Section 498A IPC, but in other cases referred to above, complaint was filed under Sections 406 and 498A along with other offences.

In the present case FIR is registered under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. Firstly, FIR is not the only piece of paper to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. During investigation witnesses must have been interrogated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the FIR there is no averment about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Secondly, admittedly respondent No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 1 at Ambala. Hence it is obvious that dowry articles must have been handed over to the petitioners at Ambala, which were taken away to matrimonial home at Hansi district Hisar. In her matrimonial home complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry and more dowry was also demanded in the matrimonial home. Complainant averred in the FIR that she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes and since then she is living at Ambala. The mental torture of being deprived of the pleasures of married life, of being subjected to cruelty and finally being turned out of the matrimonial home still looms large on her mental horizon. In the complaint itself she has averred that since then she is making efforts to persuade accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) to keep her as his legally wedded wife but he is adamant. Accused No. 1 has deserted her and has withdrawn from her society without any sufficient cause.

The complainant is being harassed by not being called by the petitioner so that her parents may meet their unlawful demand for dowry. When the complainant is residing at Ambala in her parental home and is not being called, this harassment and consequent agony can also be said to have taken place at Ambala. Therefore, the consequences of actual beating and harassment which were perpetuated at Hansi, are still continuing in the shape of mental torture, which she is still facing at Ambala. For holding this view I am duly supported by a Single Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Vijai Rattan Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1988 Crl. Law Journal 1581. This aspect of the case was not considered in any of the judgments referred to by the parties.

Therefore, in my considered view, from this angle also the Court at Ambala has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 498A IPC. So far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, decidedly Ambala Court has jurisdiction because the dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Ambala and they were to be returned at Ambala only.

The petitioners have also filed certain letters to show that the allegations made in the complaint are totally false as in these very letters there is not even a whisper of any illtreatment, harassment, demand of dowry etc. or turning her out of the matrimonial home. These letters cannot be considered by this Court in the quashment proceedings. These letters constituted defence of the petitioners. This is again a question of fact to be enquired into and decided whether complainant is the author of these letters. Without recording evidence it cannot be held that complainant has written these letter to any of the petitioners.

Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed.