Jatinder Singh vs State of Haryana

S.K. Jain, J. (Oral)

Vide his order of January 6, 1992, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, charged the petitioners herein, firstly under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, for their having subjected Harjeet Kaur complainant with cruelty by demanding more dowry from her parents, in the month of October, 1990, and secondly, under section 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 under section 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 under section 7(c) of the Dowry Prohibition (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1976, the charge under Section 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 X X X X

b) x x X 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 x."

A perusal of the abovesaid provision would show that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence under section 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 under section 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 under section 498A IPC 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, 1987; (iii) that from January, 1988 to June, 1988, the complainant resided at Jind with her parents, and (iv) that the complainant again resided with her husband at Kaithal from July, 1990 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 sind. The offence under section 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 complainantwife under Section 498A 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 accusedpetitioners under section 4 of the Act and section 498A IPC is set aside being without jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed accordingly.