@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Jai Singh Sekhon, J.@mdashThe accused-petitioners through this petition filed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seek the quashment of the complaint FIR, copy Annexure P-1, and the order of the trial Court, copy Annexure P-2, holding that a prima facie case for framing charges for offences Under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and vagueness of allegations regarding entrustment of money. This petition was admitted only on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that the marriage between Rakesh Kumar accused and Sunita Rani, complainant, admittedly took place at Ludhiana according to Hindu religious rites on 12-10-1987. About fifteen or twenty days prior to this arranged marriage, Rakesh Kumar husband along with his parents Ram Lal and Kamlesh Rani, accused-petitioners, and one Ravinder Nath Arora went to Ludhiana for finalising the date and other arrangements of marriage. These persons then made a condition precedent to the marriage that Rakesh Kumar Kalia would enter into matrimonial bond with the complainant only if her parents gave fridge, colour television, scooter and cash of Rs. 21,000/-. It is averred that the parents of the complainant gave all the articles in the dowry except scooter and colour television. The articles mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint were handed over to Rakesh Kumar, Ram Lal and Kamlesh Rani, accused-petitioners. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started maltreating the complainant in order to force her to bring colour television and scooter from her parents. The complainant then apprised her parents of this episode. Accordingly, on 20-10-1987, on the occasion of marriage of Ashwani Kumar, brother of the complainant, Rs. 5,100/ - were given to her husband Rakesh Kumar accused at Ludhiana. The inlaws, however, did not feel satisfied with this amount and continued maltreating the complainant. On the refusal of the complainant that her parents are unable to provide scooter and colour television, the husband of the complainant started beating the complainant with a leather belt. In the month of April, 1988, when the complainant was serving dinner, her husband Rakesh Kumar under the effect of intoxication and her mother-in-law started beating her and broke her glass bangles. The complainant then raised alarm, upon which the broken pieces of glass bangles were thrusts in the abdomen of the complainant by telling her tauntingly that let people hear her shrieks. The complainant, however, continued bearing this maltreatment like a devoted Indian wife with the hope that better sense would prevail one day. It is further averred that in the month of May, 1988, the above referred accused persons along with Bittu brother of her husband gave her beating. Her mother-in-law also tried to set her on fire in the kitchen by intentionally throwing the stove from the cooking slab. The cloths of the complainant caught fire but she saved herself by wrapping in a blanket. A few days thereafter she came to her parents'' house at Ludhiana on the pretext of ailment of her mother and apprised her parents of this episode, but her parents asked her to be tolerant and ultimately her brother left her at Ambala in the house of her in-laws. Even thereafter, in the month of October, 1988, her husband and mother-in-law gagged her mouth while her father-in-law started beating her with a wooden rafter. Ashok Kumar, a relation of the complainant who was residing in that locality at Ambala, was attracted to the house and ultimately he sent this information to the parents of the complainant at Ludhiana. Consequently, the father of the complainant came to Ambala and lodged a report with the police. The police recovered the complainant from the house of her in-laws and recorded her statement. She was also produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala, and thereafter sent in the custody of her parents, who brought her to Ludhiana. She was also medico-legally examined. It is further averred that the accused has refused to return Stri Dhan of the complainant. On the application of the complainant Exhibit P1 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, a case for the above referred offences was registered at the Police Station and after completion of investigation, the challan was put in the Court for offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 4/6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. After hearing the Prosecutor and the accused, the trial Court, however, vide its order dated 24-2-1990 found a prima facie case for offences under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against husband and parents-in-law of the complainant. Bittu, brother of the husband, and Shri Ravinder Arora were, however, discharged. The trial Court rejected the contention of the accused regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code at Ludhiana by holding that the allegations for offence under this Section as well as u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code being part of the same transaction, the Ludhiana Court had the jurisdiction to try the offence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.
5. It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties took place at Ludhiana at the parental house of the bride (present complainant). It is specifically averred in the first information report lodged by Mst. Sunita Rani, complainant, that on the occasion of her marriage, articles of dowry mentioned in the list attached to the complaint were entrusted to her husband and parents-in-law, but her parents having failed to give a scooter and colour television in dowry, her husband and in-laws started maltreating her. In view of this harassment, her husband was given Rs. 5,100/- at Ludhiana on the occasion of her brother''s marriage. Thus under these circumstances, there is no escape but to conclude that major part of the harassment culminating in paying Rs. 5,100/- to the husband took place at Ludhiana. The contention of Mr. Ghai, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, that this money was given as gift to the husband on the occasion of the marriage of his wife''s brother is a matter of evidence which would be duly considered by the trial Court at proper stage especially when the allegations in the complaint do ex facie reveal that parents and brother of Mst. Sunita, complainant, were forced to part with Rs. 5,100/- due to save her from the harassment by her husband and parents-in-law. As already stated, the allegations on different occasions regarding maltreatment are specific and are ex facie corroborated from the medico-legal examination referred in the complaint. u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the cruelty to the wife by husband or relations of the husband is the ingredient of the offence. The cruelty has been explained in the Explanation attached thereto as under :
Section 498A ...
Explanation.--For the purposes of this Section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
6. A bare glance through the above referred provisions leaves no doubt that physical or mental harassment to a wife by her husband or parents-in-law would be well covered under the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. If that is so, then the facts and circumstances resulting in misappropriation of the Stri Dhan as well as cruelty would form part of the same transaction being closely interlinked and knitted with each other. If that is so, then the Court at Ludhiana, where the Stri Dhan was entrusted at the time of the marriage and where the consequences of maltreatment and cruelty ensued resulting in handing over Rs. 5,100/-to the husband, had the territorial jurisdiction to try this case. The observations of Justice A.P. Chowdhri in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (1990) 2 DMC 404, can be safely referred in this regard. In that case, while dealing with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence, it was observed in para No. 8 of the judgment as under :
The next contention of the learned counsel is that the alleged cruelty was committed at Patiala and, therefore, the Court at Ropar had no territorial jurisdiction. I find that prima facie this contention is untenable. The offences alleged in this case are under Sections 406 and 498A, Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the definition of ''cruelty'' u/s 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(b), Indian Penal Code, therefore, in the context of dowry, constitute one series of act so connected together as to form the same transaction and, therefore, u/s 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both the offences become triable at Ropar. With regard to the offence u/s 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.
6-A. The observations of this Court in Dhan Devi v. Deepak (1989) 1 R Cri R 278, that the Courts at Patiala had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence as the major part of maltreatment took place at Varanasi are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. As already observed, the consequence of maltreatment ensued at Ludhiana. Under the provisions of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court where the consequences ensued had the jurisdiction to try the offence.
7. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. It is ordered to be dismissed.
