Jagdish Kumar vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Second respondentNeena Kumari who is the wife of the first petitionerJagdish Kumar, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali against her husband, the first petitioner, and her motherinlaw, the second petitioner herein, under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. She has alleged in the complaint as follows :

Complainant Neena Kumari was married at Village Khui Khera (Punjab) to petitionerJagdish Kumar on 19.11.1984. Kishan Dutt, father of the complainant gave articles to the petitioners as detailed in the complaint. All these articles were entrusted to them with the understanding that they should be given to Neena Kumari after reaching Rajpura.

The petitioners/accused connived together and started taunting her stating that she had brought less dowry and demanded Rs. 10,000/ for purchasing a scooter. They used to torture the complainant and beat her on one pretext or the other. For the first time on 14.9.1985, they beat the complainant and threw her out of the house. The complainant started living in her parents'' house. In February, 1986, she joined as J.B.T. Teacher at Jhurar Wali, Sirsa. On the request of the Panchayat, the first petitioner started living with the complainant and joined service at Sirsa. But on 9.3.1987, he left service and went to Rajpura. After that, the complainant was transferred to Mandi Dabwali and the first petitioner started living with her at Dabwali. The complainant collected some money out of her pay and purchased a colour television in April, 1993 and on 19.4.1993, got prepared a draft for Rs. 10,000/ in favour of the second petitioner which was taken by the first petitioner. This draft was got prepared by the first petitioner under pressure, who also took Rs. 10,000/ on 1.12.1993 from the father of the complainant. He took away the draft, the cash and the T.V. in an attempt to satisfy the demand of dowry. The first petitioner started living at Rajpura and did not allow the complainant and the children to live with him. The first petitioner lived at Dabwali from February, 1994 to August, 1994. After August, 1994, the petitioner never came to meet the complainant nor allowed them to live with him. Even persuasion by a Panchayat was not heeded to. Despite demand, Stri Dhan that was given, has not been given back.

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali directed the complaint to be sent to the concerned police station for registration, on receipt of which the Police Station City, Dabwali registered F.I.R. No. 171 dated 20.5.1995 under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C.

The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the abovesaid F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings including the framing of the charge. According to the petitioner, the Court at Dabwali has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the above said F.I.R. since admittedly, the marriage was performed at Khui Khera, Tehsil Fazilka District Ferozepur and the marriage party had gone to Rajpura in District Patiala. Both these places fall in the State of Punjab. The petitioners claim that the dowry articles, if any, were entrusted to the petitioner at Village Khui Khera and taken to Rajpura, where they were alleged to have been misappropriated. Petitioners also urge that the second respondent was never subjected to any cruelty by the petitioners at any place falling within the jurisdiction of the court at Dabwali. Therefore, the petitioners claim that the continuance of criminal proceedings in the court which has no jurisdiction, would be an abuse of process of Court. The other ground urged by the petitioners is that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and the secondrespondent/complainant has, on 29.6.1995, made an application to the S.H.O., Police Station City, Dabwali mentioning about the compromise and requesting that the challan be presented in the Court so that she may submit compromise to the Court.

S.H.O., Police Station City Dabwali filed the following reply on behalf of the 1st respondentState :

At present Neena Kumari is employed in a school at Dabwali. Investigation revealed that the contents of the F.I.R. are correct and charge sheet has been put into Court. The offence under Section 406 IPC is a continuing one and can be tried in the Court in whose jurisdiction the entrustment was made and in the Court within whose jurisdiction the dowry articles were embezzled. It is correct that Neena Kumari has compromised with the petitioner and an application for compromise was presented to the S.H.O., Police Station City, Dabwali. Charges have been framed against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dabwali and, therefore, this petition for quashing does not lie.

The second respondentNeena Kumari (complainant) filed a reply as follows :

Challan has been filed and the case is being tried after the framing of charge and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. This respondent joined service as J.B.T. Teacher at Jhurar Wala (Sirsa) and started living there. The first petitioner also came there, joined service and started living with this respondent. Thereafter this respondent was transferred to Mandi Dabwali and the first petitioner also came there and was living with this respondent at Dabwali. But he left service and went back to Rajpura. It is wrong that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, this respondent agreed to live with the first petitioner, or that she made the complaint being annoyed by the divorce petition. The Judicial Magistrate at Dabwali has jurisdiction to try this case. The offence under Section 406 IPC is a continuing offence. During the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer took the signatures of this respondent on blank papers from which he might have prepared some compromise application. The allegation that this respondent has compromised with the petitioner, is not true.

I have heard counsel for both the sides.

A reading of the complaint shows that the complainant and the first petitioner were married at Khui Khera and that thereafter they moved to Rajpura. It is not stated that any articles given at the time of marriage were entrusted at any other place than where the marriage took place. Further, the demand for Rs. 10,000/ has also been made at Rajpura because it is stated that the complainant was beaten and driven out of the house and that she started living in her parents'' house. Therefore, this incident also did not take place at Dabwali. But the complainant has alleged that in February, 1986, she joined as a Teacher in Jhurar Wali, Sirsa, that her husband (the first petitioner) also joined service there and lived with her but later left the service and went back to Rajpura. The complainant has further alleged that she was later transferred to Mandi Dabwali and the first petitioner also started living with her. The contention of the first petitioner is that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dabwali and, therefore, the complaint given at Dabwali is not sustainable. But I find that the complainant has alleged that she was transferred to Mandi Dabwali, that the first petitioner also started living with her at Dabwali, that the complainant from her money had purchased a colour T.V. in April, 1993 and purchased a draft for Rs. 10,000/ in favour of the second petitioner, but taken by the first petitioner. She has further alleged that this draft was purchased under the pressure given by the first petitioner. According to the complainant, the first petitioner took away the draft, cash and a T.V. in an attempt to satisfy the demand for dowry. From a reading of this, it appears that the draft and the T.V. were taken from the complainant at Dabwali. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Court at Dabwali has no jurisdiction. Once it is found that a part of the transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dabwali, then that Court will have the jurisdiction to try the series of acts which form part of the same transaction. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Dabwali Court has no jurisdiction to try this case.

The other contention taken by the petitioners is that the matter has been settled between the parties. Of course S.H.O., Police Station City, Dabwali in his reply has stated that the complainant has given a petition for compromise, but this is denied by the second respondentcomplainant. This is a matter which requires evidence and on the basis of the mere allegation of the petitioner that the matter has been compromised, the proceedings before the concerned Court cannot be quashed.

Admittedly, charges have been framed against the petitioners and unless there are compelling circumstances, this Court will not quash the proceedings. In these circumstances, the petition has to fail.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.