Jagan Nath Suri vs Babita

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Both these criminal misc. applications have been filed for quashing the complaint dated 13.6.1995 (Annexure P1) presented by the respondentBabita and the summoning order dated 9.3.1996 (annexure P2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, and therefore, I am disposing of both these applications by means of this common order.

While Cr. Misc. No. 6466M of 1996 has been filed by the fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of the respondentBabita, Cr. Misc. No. 6261M of 1996 has been filed by the husband of the respondentBabita (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498A, 109 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the presentpetitioners as also against her brotherin law Anurag Suri and sisterinlaw Sarita Vyas, making the following material allegations :

The marriage between the respondent and Sunil Suri was solemnized on 1491991 and was attended by his father, mother, brother and sister of Sunil Suri (other accused herein). In order to satisfy the lust and wishes of the accused, the parents of the respondent gave gold ornaments, garments and household articles etc. for use of the complainant as well, furniture, bedding and other electrical goods. Details of the money and other articles are mentioned in AnnexureA while the articles which were given to the complainant by her inlaws have been shown in annexure B which became her stridhan. The Roka ceremony (betrothal ceremony) took place on 27.1.1991 at Ferozepur. The parents of the respondent gave Rs. 2100/ to Sunil Suri, Rs. 501/ each to Jagan Nath Suri, fatherinlaw and Sushil Suri, motherinlaw, Rs. 251/ each to Anurag Suri, brotherinlaw and Sarita Vyas sisterinlaw, and Rs. 1004/ for distribution among the relatives of Sunil Suri besides sweets etc. A gold ring was entrusted to Sunil Suri, a golden chain was given to Sushil Suri. Three costly sarees and three gents suits were given to the accused. These items were taken in possession by the accused and taken to Dehradun. At the time of Shagan ceremony on 1391991 which took place at Dehradun, Rs. 5100/ was given to Sunil Suri, Rs. 501/ each to the motherinlaw and fatherin law, Rs. 251/ each to brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw and Rs. 1756/ for distribution among relations of the motherinlaw besides sweets etc. A wrist watch and a golden chain were entrusted to the husbandSunil Suri, while a pair of gold tops and two sarees were given to Sushil Suri.

All the articles in Annexure A which are stridhan of the respondent were entrusted to all the accused at the time of the marriage. The clothes mentioned in Annexures A and B were entrusted to the sisterinlaw while the furniture mentioned in Annexure A were entrusted to the husband and fatherinlaw. The jewellery items mentioned in Annexure A and B were entrusted to the motherinlaw, Sushil Suri except gold items mentioned in para6 of the complaint. The other household articles were entrusted to the brotherinlaw. It was made clear to the accused that all the dowry articles were for the exclusive use of the complainant, and the accused said that they will transfer the said articles to the complainant. The articles mentioned in Annexure B were entrusted to the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw.

After the marriage and before the Karva Choth the father of the respondent had gone to Dehradun and had requested all the accused that they should visit Ferozepur for that ceremony. All the accused then demanded that he should give a scooter on the Karva Choth ceremony. The fatherinlaw alone came to Ferozepur after few days of Karva Choth and stayed for four days at the residence of the respondent''s father who entrusted Rs. 25,000/ in cash at Ferozepur Cantonment for the purchase of the scooter and also some gift articles as per annexure C.

All the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by the parents of the respondent and they started maltreating the respondent to extract more dowry articles. On 19.11.1991 the respondent was beaten by all the accused on the ground that respondent should bring Rs. 50,000/ from her parents in case she wanted to stay in the matrimonial home, and then she was sent to Ferozepur alone. During the stay of the respondent at Dehradun, the behaviour of all the accused towards her was cruel and harsh and it became very difficult for her to pull on. The accused teased the respondent daily in order to pressurise her to bring more money and dowry articles. She went back to the matrimonial home at the intervention of the common relatives on 5.4.1992. The respondent was again maltreated by the accused. Her father gave Rs. 1100/ to her and she passed the same on to her husband, but he returned the said amount to the father of the said respondent.

The accused have been insulting the respondent and sometimes she was not even provided with proper meals. She was lastly turned out of the matrimonial home in July 1993. They had treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful and injurious for her to live in the matrimonial home at Dehradun. On 2141995 a Panchayat consisting of Teja Singh, and others along with the respondent and her father visited the house of the accused at Dehradun and requested the accused to keep the respondent with them and not to spoil the matrimonial life but the accused refused to maintain the respondent and threatened that they will not keep her until and unless their demands are satisfied. The Panchayat including the respondent requested the accused to return the dowry articles, which they refused to do.

Again on 30.4.1995 a Panchayat consisting of Ashok Kumar and others along with the respondent and her father visited the house of the accused at Dehradun and they requested the accused that they should keep the respondent, but all the accused pushed the panchayatdars out of their house, declared that they are not going to keep the respondent. The respondent and her father and the panchayatdars again demanded for the return of the dowry articles. The accused stated that they are not going to return the same. The said articles are still in the possession of the accused who have criminally misappropriated the same.

On the basis of this complaint dated 13.6.1995 the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, after recording the preliminary evidence summoned only the petitioner herein namely the husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of the respondent under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. That is why the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the above said complaint and the summoning order passed therein.

The petitioners have filed this petition mainly on the following grounds :

The first is that the marriage admittedly took place at Dehradun and it was at Dehradun the parties lived, that the alleged cruelty to the respondent and the entrustment of the articles also took place at Dehradun and, therefore, Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass the summoning order.

The second is that the complaint is vague as to the entrustment of the alleged dowry articles since the respondent has not specified the articles as having been entrusted to any specific person.

The third is that the husband of the respondent has filed a divorce petition wherein he has even attached a list of the articles, but the respondent has filed the complaint as a counterblast which, according to the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. The respondent has filed suitable replies to the allegations made in these petitions.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

I will first deal with the entrustment, the alleged demand for return of the articles, and the alleged refusal by the petitioners. The respondent has specifically alleged in her complaint that on 27.1.1991, before the betrothal ceremony took place at Ferozepur Contonment, the petitionerherein, and the two other accused against whom the complaint has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate, have been paid certain sums of money. She has also pleaded that a gold ring was entrusted to her husbandSunil Suri, a gold chain to Sushil Suri her motherinlaw and three costly sarees and three gents suits were also given to the accused. Therefore, we find as per the allegations in the complaint certain articles were entrusted to the accused/petitioners at Ferozepur Cantonment before betrothal ceremony. Of course the complainant/respondent has also alleged that at the time of Shagun ceremony certain items were entrusted at Dehradun, and certain items were entrusted at the time of the marriage, which also took place at Dehradun, but when a part of the series of transactions had taken place at Ferozepur Contonment, then the Court at Ferozepur will have jurisdiction in spite of the fact that certain other parts of the same or series transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of another court. In these proceedings, this court is not expected to go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint, and it is well settled law that this court has only to find out whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

The second contention of the petitioners that the allegations in the complaint are not specific with regard to the entrustment pleaded by the respondentcomplainant cannot also be accepted. The allegations extracted above clearly show that the respondentcomplainant has been specific in this regard.

The third objection taken by the petitioners that the husband of the complainant has filed a petition for divorce, attached a list of articles which the complainant could have taken, but this complaint has been filed as a counterblast will also be of no avail to the petitioners. At this stage, this Court will not entertain any such plea that the husband of the respondent was ready to give back any of the articles and, therefore, the present complaint should be quashed. In the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court will not look into any fresh material which was not before the Court of the Magistrate. Therefore, on the basis of certain materials produced by this Court only, this Court will not proceed to quash the proceedings.

In the light of what I have discussed above, it is clear that so far as the charge under Section 406, I.P.C. is concerned, the Court at Ferozepur will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the contention that the complaint is vague cannot also be accepted.

But so far as the allegation in the compliant that the accused have been maltreating, illtreating and treating the respondent with cruelty is concerned, it is apparent that the Court at Ferozepur will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on this plea. As pointed out already the marriage took place at Dehradun and the parties lived at Dehradun. The alleged cruelty took place at Dehradun. In paragraph 10 of the complaint, it has been stated that on 19.11.1991 the complainant was beaten by the accused stating that she should bring money from her parents in case she was to stay at the matrimonial home, and then she was sent to Ferozepur. It has also been stated that during the stay of the respondent at Dehradun, the behaviour of all the accused towards her was so cruel and harsh that it became very difficult for her to pull on. It has further been alleged that she went back to her matrimonial home at the intervention of the common relation on 5.4.1992 and once again she was maltreated. She has also alleged that she was lastly turned out of the matrimonial home in July 1993. She has also stated that they treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live in the matrimonial home at Dehradun. She has further alleged that there were attempts to rehabilitate her with the help of the panchayatdars but the accused refused to take her back. Therefore, the petitioners contend that when the alleged cruelty had taken place at Dehradun, the court at Ferozepur will have no jurisdiction. The petitioners have taken this point as ground No. (iii) in their petition. In reply to this ground No. (iii) the respondent has specifically stated that though the allegations regarding beating and harassing of the complainant pertained to Dehradun, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code deals with mental cruelty, that the harassment is a continuing one and had continued when she came to Ferozepur. By these allegations the respondent wants to say that the mental cruelty continued even after she came to Ferozepur and, therefore, the Court at Ferozepur will have jurisdiction. But this statement is made only in reply to this petition and there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the mental cruelty continued at Ferozepur also. Even otherwise the acts of cruelty have allegedly taken place at Dehradun admittedly. The complainant cannot say that even after she came to Ferozepur, the mental cruelty continued and, therefore, the Court at Ferozepur will have jurisdiction. That will be stretching the provisions of law regarding jurisdiction too much. If this can be allowed then the respondent can say that she went to a town in Tamil Nadu and there also her mental cruelty continued and, therefore, a Court at Tamil Nadu would also have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is not as if that the accused came to Ferozepur and treated her with cruelty. Therefore, in such circumstances when admittedly the alleged cruelty took place at Dehradun, the Court at Ferozepur will have no jurisdiction. The decision of this court in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 , Pritbir Singh v. Balwinder Kaur, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 509 and Hari Prem v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 5 , support the contention of the petitioners that if cruelty is alleged to have taken place within the jurisdiction of one Court then the complaint with regard to the same is not maintainable in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction over that place. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint insofar as it relates to the cruelty alleged by the complainant.

Accordingly these petitions are allowed in part. The complaint annexure P..1 and the summoning order annexure P2 are quashed insofar as they relate to the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only.

The parties will appear before the trial Court for proceeding further with regard to the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitions partly allowed.