Kimti Lal vs Motia Rani

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitionerhusband is claiming quashment of complaint Annexure P1 and summoning order, Annexure P2.

Respondent was married to petitioner on 11.3.1988 at Mubarikpur, District Patiala. Thereafter parties lived in their matrimonial home at village Pipli district Kurukshetra. In the complaint respondentcomplainant has averred that she was maltreated in the matrimonial home. Petitioner and his other relations (against whom also complaint Annexure P1 was filed) started demanding more dowry and on the count they harassed her. According to her at the time of her marriage dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner as well as to his father, mother, sister and maternal uncle. These dowry articles were entrusted to these accused persons by parents, relatives and friends of the complainant with a clear direction that they should be handed over to the complainant for her use and possession. According to the complainant she was never allowed to use these articles. Many of the dowry articles were taken by the accused persons 1 and 3 against the wishes and consent of the complainant. Thus, these dowry articles constitute ''Istri Dhan'' of the complainant and were entrusted to the accused persons for use and possession of the complainant. On 28.2.1989 complainant came to see her mother.

On 28.3.1989 she went back to her matrimonial home along with her mother, but they were not allowed to enter the matrimonial home. All efforts of reconciliation failed. The accused persons are misappropriating the articles belonging to the complainant. She made repeated requests to the accused for return of the entire articles constituting her ''Istri Dhan''. Her mother and other relations also made such requests, but dowry articles were not returned. The accused approached the complainant at her House No. 33, Sector 32, Chandigarh for settling the matter on 13.1.1990. There also the complainant and her relatives made requests to return the dowry articles, but the accused did not return the articles on one pretext or the other. Accused has wrongly retained these dowry articles contrary to the directions of the mother and brother of the complainant and the complainant herself. Accused have illegally, dishonestly and mala fidely retained these dowry articles in order to make wrongful gain to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. All the accused are dishonestly using and converting the articles to their own use and are still in their possession. Despite repeated demands, these dowry articles were not returned. She sent a written request through registered A.D. letter, but the accused did not hand over the articles. Hence, she filed complaint under Sections 405 and 406 read with 120B and Section 34 of the Code against the accused persons.

The learned Magistrate on minute scanning of the evidence adduced by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code held that "the question of Miss Mamta having misappropriated the dowry articles does not arise"; hence, it was held that "no case is made out against her." So far as other relations of the petitioner were concerned, the learned Magistrate held that "no prima facie case is made out against them under Sections 405 and 406 read with Section 120B of the Code." He observed that "the complainant has categorically stated that her husband Kimti Lal has refused to return the dowry articles when a demand was made by her brother and Chacha Ji on the visit of Kimti Lal to Chandigarh;" hence, he was summoned for offence under Sections 405 and 406 of the Code.

Petitioner''s learned counsel strongly stressed that Chandigarh Court has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the said offence because the marriage was performed at Mubarikpur District Patiala. After marriage, complainant and petitioner lived at village Pipli District Kurukshetra where he is still residing. He has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kurukshetra in which he is paying interim maintenance to the complainant. He has also averred that in reply to this petition, complainant has given her address of Mubarikpur District Patiala and not of Chandigarh. She is not residing or employed at Chandigarh; therefore, under Section 181(4) of the Code, Chandigarh Court has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the said offence. In support of this contention, he has relied on Harmeet Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(2) R.C.R. 610 and Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and another, 1986(2) RCR (Crl.) 441 : 1986(2) C.L.R. 81.

In Harmeet Singh''s case (supra) it is held that "Court where marriage was performed and articles handed over has the jurisdiction under Section 181(4) of the Code to try an offence under Section 406 IPC."

In Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia''s case (supra) the facts were that the parties were married at Delhi; after the breakdown of the marriage, wife started residing at Amritsar; she lodged a report under Section 406 IPC at Amritsar against her husband; the police started investigation into the said offence. The court held that "the articles of dowry were also entrusted at Delhi where the parties resided after marriage. There is no allegation that they ever resided together at Amritsar. There being no stipulation to return or account for the said articles at any place other than the marital home Effect articles in dispute held not ''required to be returned or accounted for'' at Amritsar." On the basis of these facts, the learned Single Judge held that "the Courts at Amritsar having no territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offences, police of that place have no power to investigate into the same. Accordingly, FIR was quashed.

In this case the petitioner has alleged in his petition that he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kurukshetra. In reply to his petition, respondent has given her address of Mubarikpur District Patiala, but copy of the said reply is not appended with the petition. Petitioner has also averred that respondent is neither residing at Chandigarh nor is employed there. In the complaint, the complainant has categorically pleaded that on 11.1.1990 accused approached her at House No. 33, Sector 32, Chandigarh for settling the matter. At that time also she and her relations requested the accusedpetitioner to return the dowry articles to her but he has not returned the articles. She has also averred in her complaint that she sent a registered letter to the accusedpetitioner for return of the dowry articles, but despite that letter, he has not returned the articles. In his petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, petitioner has not assailed, denied or admitted these averments made in the petition. This prima facie shows that the complainant is residing at Chandigarh, petitioner approached her in January, 1990 to settle the marital dispute and at that time also she asked him to return her dowry articles, but he declined.

The authorities relied on by the petitioner''s learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. In this case complainant has specifically pleaded how Chandigarh Court has jurisdiction. It is apparent that after matrimonial dispute arose, the complainant is residing in Chandigarh. If now the complainant and her parents are not residing at Mubarikpur, there cannot be any reason for the petitioneraccused to return the dowry articles to her at Mubarikpur. Dowry articles were handed over to the petitioner with a clear direction that they were to be used by her and were to be given to the complainant. She has averred that she was never allowed to use the dowry articles, even possession was not given to her. In her own statement as per the impugned order she supported all the allegations made by her in the complaint. Despite repeated demands made by her as well as by her relations, petitioneraccused has not returned the dowry articles. Under Section 181(4) of the Code these dowry articles are required to be returned to her at Chandigarh now. It is not a case where the complainantwife is shifting her residence from one place to another asking the accusedpetitioner to return her dowry articles wherever she goes. It is a case where after suffering rough weather in matrimonial home, she has started residing at Chandigarh. Thereafter she made request to the petitioneraccused to return her dowry articles at Chandigarh. She sent a registered letter also to that effect. Even petitioneraccused himself came to Chandigarh to settle the matrimonial dispute where again she reiterated her same demand, but no dowry articles were returned to her.

On all these facts, in my considered view, prima facie it cannot be said that Chandigarh Court has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into her complaint filed under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioneraccusedhusband. Still after appearing before the trial Magistrate, if the petitioner raises such a dispute of territorial jurisdiction, the trial Magistrate is competent to hear and decide the issue.

With these observations, petition is hereby dismissed.