Kamalpuri and others vs Geeta

B.S. Yadav, J.—The facts leading to his petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that the marriage of Shmt. Geeta, present respondent, was solemnised with petitioner No. 1 Kamal Puri at Ludhiana on 23rd November 1979 according to Hindu rites.

Shmt. Geeta lived with Kamal Puri up to 21st June, 1980 at Jullundur on which date, according to her, she was turned out of her house in the clothes she was wearing at that time. After obtaining the sanction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana as provided u/s 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Shmt. Geeta filed a complaint u/s 4-B and section 5 of the said Act against the present petitioner in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana.

The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the pet tioners is that the Judicial Magistrate at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the case nor was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana competent to grant the requisite sanction under the above Act. Hence the counsel for the petitioner prays for the quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court at Ludhiana being without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited Boota Singh & others v. Sudarshan Kaur 1980 H.L.R. 373. In that case, the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Ludhiana on 5th October 1975. The articles alleged to have been given to the wife by the parents of the wife were handed over to her husband and her relations at Ludhiana. The wife lived in the house of her husband in village Sansarpur in District Jullundur and she was turned out from the house on 31st July, 1977. After obtaining sanction u/s 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1976, the wife filed the complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. The accused was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. Relying upon section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure K.S. Tiwana, J., held as follows:-

In para 10 of the complaint, it stated that the dowry was not returned to Sudarshan Kaur by the petitioners even after one year of the marriage A reading of paras 8, 9 and 10 of the complaint clearly indicates that the offence, if at all any was committed at Sansarpur in District Jullundur. The Ludhiana Court had no jurisdiction to try this offence nor the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of that place had any authority to accord sanction u/s 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

There is no dispute about that decision based on the facts of that case. In that case the wife had lived at her husband''s place for more than a year after the marriage.

For deciding such cases we will have to examine the relevant provisions of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which reads as follows:-

Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs:-

(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman;

(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within one year after the date of marriage;or

(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within one year after the date of its receipt; or

(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within one year after she has attained the age of eighteen years; and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman.

The opening words of the section show that the dowry is meant for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. Thus, this provision has been made for the benefit of the wife. If the wife lives with the husband for a year then no difficulty arises about the place where the dowry is to be returned because according to the above provision, the dowry has to be returned within one year after the date of its receipt and usually it is received at the time of marriage The difficulty arises when the wife leaves the place of her husband either voluntarily or involuntarily within a period of one year. As this provision is meant for the benefit of the wife and if the wife is not residing with her husband and one year is to expire after the marrige then the husband is to find his wife and return the dowry to her at the place she is residing at the relevant time Therefore, the offence would be committed only if the husband fails to return the dowry to his wife within one year at the place where she is residing at the relevant time. Thus, that court will have the jurisdiction where the wife is residing when the dowry is supposed to be returned. P.T.S. Saibaba and Another Vs. P. Mangatayaru and Another, related to a case where the marriage between the parties was performed at a place called Annavaram on 25th June, 1975. According to the wife, a dowry of Rs. 8,500/- was agreed to be paid to the husband as consideration for marrying her. That amount was paid at Yeleswaram. It appears that before the expiry of one year the wife and the husband ceased living together and the wife began residing at Narasimpatnam. She filed a petition at Narasimpatnam under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused filed a petition in the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the Court at Narasimpatnam had no Jurisdiction in the matter. Repelling that contention it was remarked as follows:-

Next it was submitted that the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court at Narasimpatnam has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is true that the accused are not residents of Narasimpatnam. The marriage has taken place at Annavaram in East Godavari District The accused are residents of Yeleswaram in East Godavari District. Only the complainant is living at Narasimpatnam. Section 6 of the Act provides that when a dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person should transfer the dowry to the woman. If he fails to transfer within the time limited therefor he is punishable with imprisonment or with fine. It means, it is obligatory on the part of the person who has received the dowry to transfer it to the woman. He can transfer it at the place where the woman is residing. If he fails to transfer it, then the woman gets cause of action for filing a complaint at the place where it should have been transferred to her. Consequently, I am of the opinion that where the woman is residing she can file the complaint therefor return of the amount. In this case, since the complainant is residing at Narasimpatnam, the complaint filed by her in the Court at Narasimpatnam is valid.

It was further remarked:-

Section 177, Cr.P.C. says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. I have already held that it was the duty of the petitioners to return the dowry amount to the complainant at Narasim patnam and in default they had to suffer criminal prosecution. Since the offence is committed within the local jurisdiction of Narasimpatnam Magistrate''s Court, that Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Reference can also be made to Surinder Singh v. Rajinder Kaur (1972) 74 P.L.R. 18 related to a case where the wife had been turned out of her home by her husband before the expiry of one year. The wife began residing with her parents in Jullundur The husband was residing at Shahbad in Karnal District. The wife filed complaint under the Dowry Act at Jullundur. The charge against the husband was for violation of section 6 of the above Act. The husband filed an application in the High Court for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the Court at Jullundur had no jurisdiction in the matter. Rebuffing that contention, Dhillon, J. who decided the case observed as follows:-

It may also be observed that subsection (1)of section 6 clearly provides the transfer of the dowry, a person receiving the dowry has to hold the same in trust for the benefit of the woman. Thus, the articles of dowry were with the petitioner as a trust for one year and after the passing of one year he had been enjoined by law to hand over the said articles to the wife. In a way, not returning the articles, after one year or misutilising them within one year, would amount to a breach of trust, and there is no doubt that the provisions of the Code of Cr. Procedure would apply to the trial of the case u/s 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The relevant provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure is section 181(2), which provides that the offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained by the accused person, or the offence was committed. This section gives concurrent jurisdiction to the Court where the property was received or where it was retained or where the offence was committed. In the present case, if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are correct, the dowry in question was handed over to the petitioner at Jullundur at the time of the marriage of the petitioner. Therefore, it is idle to contend that the Court of the Magistrate at Jullundur has no jurisdiction to try the case.

With due respects to Dhillon, J., I do not agree that section 181(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, would determine the place of trial of an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act because technically speaking the non-return of dowry within the prescribed period will not amount to criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation. I think the place of trial of an offence u/s 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would be determined under the provisions of section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure because as mentioned earlier the offence would be deemed, to be committed at the place where the wife is residing at the relevant time when the dowry is to be returned within the prescribed period.

In view of my above discussion, I do not find any force in the present petition and dismiss the same.