Sanjay Khosla vs Sumina

Nanak Chand Khichi, J.

Sanjay Khosla, husband of Smt. Sumina complainant, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint Annexure P1 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and summoning order Annexure P2.

According to the averments made in the complaint Annexure P1 filed by Smt. Sumina, respondent, she was married to Sanjay Khosla on 11.7.1989 at Ghaziabad. Shri D.N. Khosla and Smt. Shashi Khosla, the parents of Sanjay Khosla and Jogesh Khosla and Rajesh Kumar Khosla, his brothers had come to Ghaziabad along with the marriage party. The parents of the complainant had given dowry listed in Annexure ''A''. The articles at serial Nos. 1 to 10, in Annexure ''A'' were handed over to the parents of Sanjay Khosla, whereas other articles of dowry were entrusted to his brothers accused No. 4 and 5, whereas the cash given in dowry was handed over to Sanjay Khosla. After about 10/15 days of the marriage, the petitioneraccused No. 1 took the complainant to Surat, where they lived together upto 12.10.1992 and during this period the complainant was treated with utmost cruelty by her husband. While going to Surat, the accused did not allow the complainant to take any article of dowry along with her. While at Surat, the complainant found her husband completely addicted to drinking. He compelled her to bring money from her parents. Consequently, her father gave Rs. 10,000/ to him. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband returned to Morad Nagar where they lived together upto 6.1.1993. On the said date, the brother of the complainant had gone to Morad Nagar. The accused picked up a quarrel with him and after doing so, they turned the complainant out of the house as a result of which she took shelter at the house of her parents at Jalandhar. The articles of dowry were not returned in spite of the repeated demands made by the complainant on 6.1.1993 and are being retained by the accused.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the parties subsequent to the marriage never lived together at Jalandhar nor any article of dowry was entrusted or retained at Jalandhar and as such, the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Jalandhar has no jurisdiction to try the case.

There appears to be force and substance in this contention. Admittedly, the petitioner and other accused were residing at Morad Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, at the time of their marriage. The marriage was solemnised at Morad Nagar. As per the allegations, the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused at Morad Nagar. Assuming the facts as given in complaint Annexure P1 to be correct, the misappropriation of the dowry articles was committed by the petitioner and other accused at Morad Nagar, District Ghaziabad. The relevant provision for the place of trial in such a case is contained in Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. which reads as under :

"181(4). Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."

In Sukhwinder Singh Buttar and others v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur, 1992(2) RCR 390 , a Single Bench of this Court dealing with a similar situation quashed the complaint filed by the wife.

In the instant case, as per the allegations of the complainant the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused at Morad Nagar at the time of solemnization of the marriage and thereafter, she was never allowed to take away those articles even when she along with her husband left for Surat. She was even not allowed to take the dowry articles on 6.1.1993 when she left Morad Nagar, along with her brother for Jalandhar. The dowry articles were neither entrusted to the accused at Jalandhar nor are being retained there. Thus in view of the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. referred to above, the courts at Morad Nagar, District Ghaziabad where the property was entrusted and being retained had the jurisdiction to try this case. The mere fact that the complainant after having been turned out from the matrimonial house, has started living with her parents at Jalandhar, will not vest the Courts at Jalandhar with a jurisdiction to try the complaint. The courts at Jalandhar have no jurisdiction to try the complaint Annexure P1 and on this sole ground, the petition is allowed and the complaint Annexure P1 summoning order Annexure P2 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed. However, the complainant will be at liberty to file fresh complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.