Jatinder Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

S.K. Jain, J.—Vide his order of January 6, 1992, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, charged the petitioners herein, firstly u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, for their having subjected Harjeet Kaur complainant with cruelty by demanding more dowry form her parents, in the month of October, 1990, and secondly, u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for their having demanded dowry from the parents of Harjeet Kaur, in that. month.

Feeling aggrieved against the abovesaid order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petition has been contested on behalf of the State.

The first argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in the absence of the sanction of the District Magistrate u/s 7(c) of the Dowry Prohibition (Haryana Amendment) Act. 1976, the charge u/s 4 of the Act could not have been framed. Section 7(c) of the Haryana Amendment Act is reproduced below :-

Cognizance of offence Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) x x x x i

(b) x x X x x

(c) no court shall take cognizance of any such offence except with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify:

in this behalf;

x x x x x"

A perusal of the abovesaid provision would show that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence u/s 4 of the Act except with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, Jind. Admittedly, the complainant had not obtained such a sanction and, therefore, the impugned order to the extent of framing of charge u/s 4 of the Act against the petitioners is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the parties resided at Kaithal as husband and wife and if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be correct for the sake of argument, even then the offence of cruelty is alleged to have been committed at Kaithal and therefore, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, had no jurisdiction to frame the charge u/s 498A I.P.C. against the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order would show, (i) that the marriage between Harjeet Kaur- and Jatinder Singh was solemnised at Jind on January 19 1986; (ii) that the parties resided as husband and wife at Kaithal upto December 19. S887; (iii) that from January 1988 to June, 1988, the complainant resided at Jind with her parental, and (iv) that the complainant again resided with her husband at Kaithal from July, 1980 to October 24. 1990. Therefore. the petitioners never resided with the complainant at Jind and hence they had no occasion to subject her to cruelty at Jind. The offence u/s 498A, if at all, was committed at Kaithal and not at Jind. In this situation, the Court at Jind has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant-wife u/s 489A IPC.

In view of the above discussion, the order dated January 6 1992 passed by Shri V.P. Bishnoi, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, charging the accused-petitioners u/s 4 of the Act Section 498A IPC is set aside being without jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed accordingly.