Kapoot Singh Ahluwalia vs Anita

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Respondent Anita filed against her husband, parentsinlaw and sister of her husband complaint Annexure P. 1 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, under sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging criminal breach of trust in respect or her articles of dowry on their part and cruelty meted out to her by them through repeated beatings at intervals for coercing her to bring more money from her parents for purchase of fridge, coloured T. V., scooter and visit of her husband abroad.

Parents of husband and his sister have Jointly filed Criminal Misc. No. 9891M of 1989 for quashing the complaint on the grounds that Criminal Court at Kaithal had no jurisdiction to entertain it, that there is no allegation obtaining therein of entrustment of any particular item of dowry to any particular respondent in the complaint and that parents of the husband as also his sister are living separately in their ancestral house/matrimonial home respectively and as such allegation of demands for more dowry and cruelty levelled against them are all groundless.

I have heard Shri J. B. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioners, Shri Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri J. S. Yadev, Advocate for the respondent and have looked into the material on record very carefully.

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners with reference to the observations made in Zora Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 380 : 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 75 , Shori Lal and others v. Smt. Nisha and another, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 276 and Kishan Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 13 that no specific allegation of entrustment of any particular dowry article to anyone from amongst the three petitioners having been made, no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against anyone of them and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

The argument advanced is wholly without merit and the ratio of any of the three authorities is not attracted for application on the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. The relevant assertions obtaining against the three petitioners reads:

"That at the time of marriage the father of the petitioner had entrusted so many valuable articles in the marriage as dowry total valuing about Rs. 70,000/ to accused No. 1 and 2, including the other ceremonial expenses. The list of Articles along with their value and expenses is attached herewith.

Just after marriage on the first arrival of the complainant at her Inlaw''s house, the accused No. 3 started taunting the complainant and said that she had not brought colour T. V., Fridge and Scooter for her son, in the marriage and that she will not tolerate her (complainant) in her house. The complainant on her visit to village Fatehpur at her father''s house told the whole matter to her parents. Upon which her father at the arrival of accused No. 1 at village Fatehpur, to take back the complainant handed over Rs. 3000/ in cash for purchasing the black and white T.V. as he was not in a position to pay for a colour T. V. The accused No. 1 became annoyed on seeing Rs. 3000/ only and said that it is not the way to keep the daughter happy in the house of her inlaws. The father of the complainant further assured to accused No. 1 that he will pay Rs. 500/ more within 3 months for purchasing the Fridge, in any way, but he showed his inability to pay for the colour T. V. and Scooter. The accused No. 1 on taking the assurance look back the complainant to his house.

That about 3 months back, when the complainant along with accused No. 1 and 2 were on visit to village Fatehpur at her father''s house, the father of the complainant paid Rs. 5OOO/ in cash to accused No. 2 in the presence of accused No. 1 for purchasing the fridge as per assurance. Both the accused took the said amount, but said that it is not proper he should arrange for some more money.

The father of the complainant to satisfy the lust of the accused for money sold a part of his land and gave Rs. 10,000/ to accused No. 2 in the month of March, 1987 at village Ranipur and requested all the accused not to harass and torture the complainant in future. The accused No. 1 and 2 left the complainant and the child at Rai Chowk Fatehpur at about 9 P. M. in three clothes "as long her to inform if her father is ready to pay Rs. 20,000/ otherwise they are not going to keep her.

That the accused have committed cognizable offences u/s 406, 498A IPC by not returning the dowry articles which were entrusted to them and further doing cruelty by harassing, torturing, beating and illegal demands to the complainant and her family members from time to time."

The allegations obtaining in the complaint Annexure P. 1 reproduced above, have been held by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : 1985(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 666 and J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 75 (SC) : 1987(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 1 to be sufficient in law to assert that all three petitioners are guilty of the commission of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In this view of the matter the complaint Annexure P. 1 cannot be quashed on this ground.

Secondly, it was asserted with reference to the observations made in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 that major part of maltreatment having taken place in village Ranipur of Kaithal district or in the matrimonial home of the complainant at Jalandhar, Criminal Court at Kaithal in Haryana State has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the complaint. This argument is again wholly without merit and the authority cited in support of it does not support it.

Relevant sections 179 and 181 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which determines the place of trial in such cases read:

"179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When as act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has enured.

Place of trial in case of certain offences.

(1) xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx

(3) xx xx xx

(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject to the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. "

In this case as would appear from the allegations made in the complaint, the consequence of demands for more dowry enured and these demands were always satisfied by father of the complainant in village Fatehpur tehsil and district Kaithal of Haryana State. Dowry was received by the petitioners there. Complaint Annexure P1 could, therefore, legitimately be filed at Kaithal.

For the reasons given above Criminal Misc is rendered wholly benefit of any merit therein and is consequently dismissed.