Krishna Devi and ors. vs Rajni Bala

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Krishna Devi motherinlaw and Sanjeev Kumar husband of Rajni Balarespondent have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under the Provisions of Section 482 Cr.C.P. for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order under Section 406 I.P.C. Annexure P/2 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Rajni Bala respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and also Krishan Lal father and Aarti sister of Sanjeev Kumar for offences under Sections 406, 498A, I.P.C. Briefly stated the allegations in the complaint were that Rajni Bala was married to Sanjeev Kumar on 11.12.1988 at Ambala Cantt. Two days after the marriage the accused named in the complaint, came to Ludhiana where they were entrusted with dowry articles detailed in the complaint, with the understanding that the same will be handed over to the complainant on reaching her matrimonial home. Instead of giving the articles to the complainant the accused started taunting her that marriage was not performed according to their wishes and dowry articles were not according to their status. They maltreated the complainant and harassed her and started demanding V.C.R. and scooter. When father of the complainant retired from service in December, 1990, he got Rs. two lacs as retirement benefits and the accused started pressurizing the complainant to demand Rs. one lac from her father for construction of a house. The complainant could not oblige the accused and their behaviour towards her became more cruel. She was ultimately turned out of the house. When she demanded her dowry articles in the presence of the panchayat, the accused refused to return the same and misappropriated those articles.

After preliminary evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court found that since the complainant was harassed and beaten at Ambala, the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 498A, IPC. Aarti and Kewal Krishan accused were also not summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 406, I.P.C. as the articles handed over to them did not constitute Istri Dhan and were meant for joint use. The Court, however, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and they were summoned to face trial for the same.

The petitioner''s contention was that no article of dowry was entrusted at Ludhiana. The marriage took place at Ambala and the allegations that two days after the marriage dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Ludhiana were not probable. There was no occasion for the petitioners to go to Ludhiana for simply collecting the dowry articles. It was further contended that a petition for dissolution of marriage had been filed by petitioner No. 2 against the respondent on the ground of cruelty at Ambala on 17.9.1991 and as a counterblast to that petition the respondent filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate at Ludhiana and then to harass the petitioners, the present complaint was filed on false allegations.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly the marriage of the respondent took place with petitioner No. 2 at Ambala and thereafter the parties resided at Ambala. Even the trial Court gave findings that so far as the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was concerned, the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the same. When the marriage took place at Ambala, the dowry articles which were to be given to the respondent must have been given to her there and this version that two days later the petitioner went to Ludhiana where dowry articles were entrusted to them was not probable and these allegations were made simply to find an excuse to present the complaint in a Court at Ludhiana. This contention of the learned counsel is without merit as under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers of the Court can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and in a complaint these powers can be exercised only in case the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. There are definite allegations in the complaint as well as in the statement made by the complainant that dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Ludhiana. At this stage only the allegations are to be seen and the question whether the same are false or true is not to be gone into. Moreover, the respondent admittedly is residing at Ludhiana and the dowry articles are to be returned to her at that place. In Madhu Sharma and another v. Dr. M.L. Sharma and others, 1992(1) RCR 187 the bride was married at Ludhiana but she lived at Panipat when she demanded return of dowry articles. It was held that accused were required to return Istri Dhan at Panipat where bride was residing and Court at Panipat had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. So viewed from any angle, the complaint and summoning order are not liable to be quashed simply on the ground that Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 406, I.P.C.

No other point was pressed before me. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.