Mangat Ram vs The State of Haryana and another

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—Jagat Parshad respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498 A/406 I.P.C. against Mangat Ram son of Sohan Lal, Sohan Lal father of Mangat Ram, Parkasho Devi wife of Sohan Lal and Smt. Veena C/o Chaman Lal Jagat Parshad is resident of Jagadhri whereas Mangat Ram, Sohan Lal and Parkasho Devi are residents of village Bhadaur Tehsil Baranala District Sangrur. The complaint filed by Jagat Parshad is that Mangat Ram was married to his daughter Sunita Rani who was maltreated after her marriage for bringing in-adequate dowry, although he had given a lot of dowry in her marriage. He has mentioned in the complaint a list of the articles which were given by him in dowry to Sunita Rani. It is further mentioned in the complaint that Sunita Rani was murdered by the accused on 9.1.1984 but as they are influentials, so no action could be taken against them. He has filed the complaint as the dowry articles left by Sunita Rani are in the custody of the accused. They have misappropriated the same and as they had maltreated the deceased, so both Sections 406 and 498-A are attracted. Shri Randhir Singh, trial Magistrate, Jagadhri summoned the accused vide his order dated 6.12.1985.

The petitioner has filed this petition in this Hon''ble Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. Mr. Sarda learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the facts as mentioned in the complaint are taken on their face value, no offence u/s 406 IPC, will be made out. His contention is that father of the deceased girl cannot claim the estate of his married daughter after her death, and retention of the dowry items by the husband will not amount to commission of offence u/s (sic) I.P.C. He has relied upon Ajit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab (1983) 10 Cr. L.T. 257, (Para 3) wherein it has been held as follows:-

It seems that the attention of the learned trial Magistrate was not drawn towards section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which provides for general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. The said section provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. In the absence of the aforesaid category of heirs, the property would thus go to the heirs provided in clauses secondly to lastly of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The non obstante clauses in sub-section (2) of section 15 would, in the instant case, be not applicable, for the dowry gifts received by Satinder Kaur were not in the nature of property inherited by her from nor father and, thus, the succession would confine only within sub-section (1) of section 15, according to the rules set out in section 16 Rule (1) thereof provides that, among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry, shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry; and those included in the same entry shall take similtaneously. Now here, in the absence of the sons and daughters, on the children of any predeceased son of daughter of Satinder Kaur, her husband alone was entitled to her estate. This was not a case of searching for heirs of Class 1 in the Schedule as has been done by the learned trial Magistrate, for that Schedule too has to operate with the aid of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for general rules of succession in the case of males The view taken by the learned Magistrate in this regard is obviously faulty and deserves to be set aside.

I am in agreement with the view taken by M.M. Puncbhi J. In this situation, no offence u/s 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner.

Mr. Sarda has further argued that so far as offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, the trial Magistrate at Jagadhri does not have territorial jurisdiction. Sunita Rani was married and she lived at Bhadaur Tehsil Barnala District Sangrur after her marriage with her in-laws and if there was any mal-treatment it was at Bhadaur and not at Jagadhri. So only Courts at Barnala have territorial jurisdiction and not Courts at Jagadhri.

Mr. Sandhu has not been able to show any averment in the complaint or any statement of any P.W. showing that any mal-treatment or demand of dowry was made at Jagadhri. In fact, his main argument is that offence u/s 406 I.P.C. is made out and for that Jagadhri Courts had jurisdiction and if offence u/s 406 I.P.C. is not made out then Jagadhri Courts will not have jurisdiction u/s 498-A I.P.C.

I have considered the arguments of both the parties and I am of the view that in the absence of any averment in the complaint or any mention of any statement made by the P.Ws. Jagadhri Courts will not have territorial jurisdiction as it is admitted case of the parties that deceased Sunita Rani lived at Bhadaur Tehsil Barnala District Sangrur with her in-laws after her marriage.

His complaint u/s 406 I.P.C. is not legally maintainable and Jagadhri Courts have no territorial Jurisdiction for trying offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. As such, the complaint filed by Jagat Parshad and the order of summoning of the accused passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 6.12.1985 are hereby quashed.