Yash Pal Bhalla vs State of Punjab and another

M.M. Punchhi, J.(Oral)

Through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a husband and his mother require this Court to quash a Criminal complaint preferred by the wife against them under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The first ground taken is that the Court has no jurisdiction to try an offence under section 406 of the India Penal Code between husband and wife on the ratio of Vinod Kumar Sethi v. The State of Punjab, 1982(1) C.L.R. 638.This point is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents.

The second ground taken is that sanction for prosecution under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was granted by a SubDivisional Magistrate whereas the mandate of the law is that it could be granted by a District Magistrate. Support is sought from Swarn Lal v. Smt. Bimla Devi, 1982 Matrimonial Law Reporter 65. No doubt in the said case the proceedings were quashed on the ground so raised but no notification was produced before the Hon''ble Judge whereby the powers of District Magistrate stood delegated to the SubDivisional Magistrate. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice such a notification (No. 43772SW 76/23909 dated 3.9.1976). The ground thus fails.

The third ground taken is that the Court at Jullundur had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. This point has neither been raised in this petition nor has it ever been taken up before the Courts below. It cannot be permitted to be raised here.

The last ground is that the complaint is barred by limitation. That point too has not been raised by the petitioner before the Courts below. Question of limitation can only be decided after having regard to the allegations made in the complaint and the precharge evidence. Seemingly so far no charge has been made against the petitioners. They have just been summoned vide order, Annexure P.3. On this material, no case has been made out for this Court to interfere in the proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with the observations that the summoning order of the petitioners under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code would stand quashed as conceded on the basis of Vinod Kumar Sethi''s case (supra), the sanction of prosecution is perfectly in order, and that other points may well be raised by the petitioners at the precharge stage. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

JUDGMENTed accordingly.