Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1154 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Chanchal Rani

2010-03-11

HARBANS LAL

body2010
Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1 This petition is directed by Naresh Kumar, Kewal Krishan Bansal and Usha Rani wife of Kewal Krishan Bansal under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 111 dated 27.7.2006 bearing caption Chanchal Rani v. Naresh Kumar and others under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C. (Annexure P-l), summoning order dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala for want of territorial jurisdiction as the alleged occurrence or offence has not been committed by the petitioners within the jurisdiction of courts at Barnala. 2 The facts in brief are that the marriage between Chanchal Rani alias Geetanjali and Naresh Kumar was solemnized on 17.10.2004 as per Hindu rites at Barnala. The parents of the complainant gave sufficient Tstridhan which was handed over to the accused persons as trustee in the presence of the relatives of the complainant and other respectables with a direction that as and when same are demanded shall be returned to the complainant. The complainant and her husband started residing at Bathinda as husband and wife after marriage. A female child namely Jasika was born on 12.9.2005 from their wedlock. The accused persons being greedy were unhappy over the Tstridhan given by the complainants parents in the marriage. They used to taunt the complainant for having brought lesser dowry. They were telling her to bring Rs.2.00 lacs in cash from her parents in order to purchase more dowry articles. For this purpose, they used to give beatings and disrespect to her in the presence of their relatives and friends. Thus, they had been physically and mentally torturing her. She continued bearing their atrocities by saying that her parents are poor persons and they have already spent much more than their financial capacity on the marriage and they are not in a position to give more cash or dowry. Their behaviour remained cruel towards the complainant. After the birth of female baby, they started remarking that by giving birth to the girl, she has raised an occasion for expenses f87or them and turned her out of the matrimonial home in three wearing apparels after giving beatings. They told her that she cannot return matrimonial home unless she brings an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs in cash. She alongwith her minor child went to her parental house. They told her that she cannot return matrimonial home unless she brings an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs in cash. She alongwith her minor child went to her parental house. After four days, the panchayat went to the house of the accused persons alongwith the complainant and the minor child in order to rehabilitate her. They showed disrespect to the panchayat as well as the complainant and held out a threat that if the panchayat forcibly left her in the matrimonial home, she alongwith her minor child will be physically liquidated. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners urged with a good deal of force that from a bare reading of the complaint, it would be clear that the offence mentioned therein have been allegedly committed by the petitioner against the complainant at Bathinda and there is no allegations, in the complaint that they had committed any office at Barnala. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint, nothing has happened within the jurisdiction of courts at Barnala. Therefore, the impugned complaint was neither maintainable nor competent in the courts at Barnala. He further puts that it is well settled law that in such circumstances, only the court within whose territory the offence is committed, has the competence to entertain and try the case. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon Manish Ratan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another 2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 513 : 2007(1) R.A.J. 355 : 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 126 (SC), Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana 2008(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 835 (P&H), Jasjit Singh Bakshi & Others v. State of Punjab and Another 2008(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 170 and Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 885. 5 As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent pressed into service that the marriage was solemnized at Barnala, where dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners and others and that being so partly the cause of action has arisen there. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 5 As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent pressed into service that the marriage was solemnized at Barnala, where dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners and others and that being so partly the cause of action has arisen there. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 6 In Rajesh Kumar and others (supra) the complainant wife was shunted out of her matrimonial home at Rohtak where she was harassed and she had shifted to her parental house in District Jhajjar. It was held that offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. cannot be held to be continuing one only because the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home When the demand of dowry was made at particular place, any other place will not have the jurisdiction to entertain, investigate or try the same. In Jasjit Singh Bakshi and others (supra) after marriage, the husband and wife resided at Delhi. The cruelty, was administered to the wife at Delhi by demanding dowry. The wife came to reside at Mohali. Her father resided at Anandpur Sahib. It was held that court at Anandpur Sahib had no jurisdiction and the court at Delhi has the jurisdiction. It is not a continuing offence. In Manish Ratan and others (supra) the incident took place at Jabalpur. The wife had saved her life by leaving matrimonial home and living with parents at Datia. The F.I.R. was lodged at Datia, where wife was living with her parents. The Supreme Court held that in a case of this nature, an offence cannot be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant is forced to leave her matrimonial home and that the court at Datia has no jurisdiction. The criminal case was transferred from court of Datia to court of Jabalpur. In Rajendra Ramehandra Kavalekar (supra), it has been held "that the territorial jurisdiction of a court with regards to criminal offence would be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed. The venue of inquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge-sheet. The venue of inquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge-sheet. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." 7 The concept of judicial precedent as emerges out of these rulings is that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. cannot be held to be a continuing one merely because the complainant was a forced to leave her matrimonial home. The place at which the demand of dowry has been made that will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, investigate and try the case. A careful delving into the allegations enshrined in the complaint Annexure P-1 would reveal that the alleged acts which according to the petitioners constitute the offences under Section 406/498-A of I.P.C. were committed by the accused mostly in Bathinda. Thus prima facie, there is nothing on the record to show that any acts constituting the alleged offences were at all committed at Barnala. So, the authorities sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 8 The upshot of the above discussion is that the only possible conclusion is that the court at Barnala will not have the jurisdiction to try the case. In Manish Ratan and others(supra) in similar circumstances, the criminal case was directed to be transferred from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. On the same analogy, in my opinion instead of quashing the complaint Annexure P-l, it would be appropriate to direct the transfer of the complaint pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda who may try himself or entrust the same to some other court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order is made. 9 The parties through their respective counsel are directed to put in their appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on 27.4.2010. 10 The petition stands disposed of. 11 Since the petion has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of. Petition dismissed.