Tilak Raj Sood vs Sudesh Sood

S. S. Grewal, J.

Smt. Sudesh Sood filed complaint against her husband Tilak Raj, Ashok Kumar her husband''s brother, Naresh Sood wife of Ashok Kumar and her husband''s sister Santosh Sood under Sections 406, 120B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, who after recording preliminary evidence dismissed the complaint against the accused other than Tilak Raj and only summoned the said accused under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 2nd of February, 1991. Aggrieved against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, Sudesh Sood and complainant filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who, vide his order dated 13.7.1992 modified the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the extent that trial shall also proceed against Tilak Raj accused both under Section 406 as well as under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below Tilak Raj accused has filed the present revision petition.

Briefly stated according to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was married to Tilak Raj on 15.2.1982 at Patiala according to Hindu rites. After their marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife at the house of Tilak Raj accused in Chandigarh till 1984, before she shifted to Mohali out of the said wedlock a male child was born who at the time of the filing of the complaint was five years old and was in custody of the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that at the time of her marriage with Tilak Raj accused, her parents gave sufficient articles of dowry which were entrusted to the accused for use and benefit of the complainant. Besides the complainant was given ornaments as mentioned in Annexure ''B'' as Wari in presence of Hari Chand Sood and other witnesses and the entire dowry was entrusted to the accused. However, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and the complainant was maltreated by the accused when she resided with them at Chandigarh and Mohali as husband''s brothers, brother''s wife and sister very frequently visited Mohali. She was insulted and beaten. The complainant''s relations visited her and she told them about her miserable life. A demand of Rs. 20,000/ in cash, T.V. set and a scooter was also made by the accused. She told the accused that her parents have already spent money beyond their capacity and after death of her father, her mother was not in a position to give anything more. It is further alleged that the ornaments and the costly clothes were kept by the accused. The complainant''s brother collected Panchayat and approached the accused on 13.12.1987 but they were all insulted and demands of Rs. 20,000/ in cash, T.V. set and scooter were made by the accused. Panchayat also requested the accused to return the articles of dowry as the same were personal property of the complainant but the latter refused to do so.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of Tilak Raj accused petitioner, it was submitted that offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are separate offences independent of each other and that the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try these offences together. It was further submitted that allegations in the complaint concerning the commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code indicate that, if at all, the Courts having jurisdiction over the territories of Mohali or Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the said offences as the complainant and Tilak Raj accused lived together there from 1982 to 14th of November, 1987 and not the Courts at Patiala.

The argument is devoid of any merit. Dealing with this aspect of the case in Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and another, II (1990) Divorce and Matrimonial Cases 404, A.P. Chowdhri, J. observed as follows :

"Having regard to the definition of ''cruelty'' under Section 498A, the harassment of the woman is confined to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for property or on account of her failure to meet such demand. The offences under Sections 406 and 498A (IB), Indian Penal Code, therefore, in the context of dowry, constitute one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction and, therefore, under Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both the offences become triable at Ropar. With regard to the offence under Section 406, the allegation of the prosecution is that the articles were entrusted to the accused named in the FIR at Mohali in District Ropar where the marriage was performed. Prima facie, Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, invests the Courts in District Ropar with territorial jurisdiction."

In the instant case there are specific allegations in the complaint that the articles of dowry were entrusted to the accused at Patiala at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage of the complainant with Tilak Raj accused petitioner. Besides, there are allegations against the accusedpetitioner concerning not only with regard to insufficiency of dowry but also with regard to failure on the part of the accused to return the articles of dowry as well as with regard to more demands of dowry by the accused petitioner from his parentsinlaw through his wife. All these series of acts concerning misappropriation of Istridhan as well as harassment or cruelty are so closely connected or interlinked with each other so as to form part of the same transaction, making out a prima facie on the part of the accused petitioner to be summoned under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

I find further support in my view from the authority of Single Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 271 .

The view expressed by Single Bench authority of this Court in Jatinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1993(2) Recent Criminal Reports 121 : (1993) XX Criminal Law Times 58 relates to peculiar facts of that particular case wherein there was no allegation of subjecting the complainantwife to cruelty at Jind. The facts of the case in hand are entirely different inasmuch as the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out a case against the accusedpetitioner to stand trial concerning commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The authority in Jatinder Singh''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and is clearly distinguishable.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this revision petition shall in any manner be construed to affect the rights of the parties on merit. Both the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.3.1994. The trial Court is directed to dispose of this case expeditiously according to law.