G. S. Chahal, J.
1. Sukhwinder Singh alongwith his father ''and mother have come to this court in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint'' Annexure P1 under Sections 406/498A Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the summoning order Annexure P2.
2. According to the averments made in the complaint, moved by Paramjit Kaur, respondent, she was married to Sukhwinder Singh Buttar. Anaib Singh Buttar is the father and Harjinder Kaur is the mother and Sarabjit Kaur is the sister of Sukhwinder Singh. The marriage was solemnised at Amritsar on November 20, 1983. The petitioners had made a precondition of giving of dowry and the marriage ceremonies'' were performed only after they had examined the dowry articles. The entire dowry articles are detailed in a list attached with the complaint. She further avers that further demands of dowry were made and she was also subjected to cruelty and ultimately turned out of the house. The articles of dowry were not returned in spite of the demands and were being retained by the petitioners at Jalandhar at the place of their residence. The respondent is at present residing with her parents at Kapurthala.
3. The complaint has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrates. Kapurthala and the petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of that Court to try the complaint.
4. Admittedly the marriage was solemnised at Amritsar and thereafter the complainant went to her inlaws house at Jalandhar. Assuming the facts given by the complainant to be correct, the misappropriation of the dowry articles was committed by the petitioners at Jalandhar. The relevant provision of Cr. P. C. for the place of trial in such a, case is contained in Section 181(4), and I quote :
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 to the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."
5. In view of this provision, the Courts at Amritsar where the property was entrusted and the Courts at Jalandhar where the property is being retained had the jurisdiction to try the case. The simple fact that the complainant herself had taken up residence at Kapurthala will not vest the Courts at Kapurthala with a jurisdiction to try the complaint. On this sole ground the petition is allowed and the complaint and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. The complainant will be at liberty to file fresh complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.''
