Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh And Ors. vs Kanta Rani on 8 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC463
JUDGMENT G.S. Chahal, J.
1. Kulwant Singh and his parents Sant Singh and Gurbachan Kaur, by means of this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of the complaint pending in the Court of Additional CJM, Kapurthala and the summoning order dated Oct. 9, 1991 and all consequent proceedings.
2. Kanta Rani-respondent brought the impugned complaint Annexure P-1 against the present petitioners. The allegations made in the complaint may be briefly summarised as follows :--
The marriage of the respondent was solemnised with Kulwant Singh-petitioner No. 1 on February, 27, 1990 at Kapurthala as per Hindu rites. The petitioners made a demand and for dowry from the parents of the respondent as a pre-condition of the marriage and this demand had to be accepted under pressure. The articles of dowry were displayed in the presence of Gurmeet Singh, Sumer Chand, Paras Ram, Balbir Singh and other relations. The list of articles was prepared and one of that list was handed over to the petitioner and his father while the second copy was retained and the same is annexed with the complaint. Petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given and they started maltreating the complainant and they used to give her frequent beatings and also used filthy language. Five months after the marriage, the petitioners turned the respondent out of the house in just wearing apparel and made a demand for a scooter and a fridge. Parents of the respondent along with respectables visited the house of the petitioner and gave Rs. 3,000/ and rehabilitated the respondent at the house of the petitioner. A month thereafter, petitioners again started maltreating the respondents and ultimately in February 1991, all the petitioners gave severe beatings to the respondent. On her raising Raula, she was rescued by the residents of the Mohalla and she filed an application before the P.S. Ludhiana. However, the police got a compromise effected. In the month of March, however, again she was turned out of the house after giving beatings. A Panchayat was then arranged, but reconciliation having not been arrived at, the parents of the respondent asked the petitioners to return the articles of dowry and other gifts, but they refused to hand-over the same. Though further efforts were made to prevail upon the petitioners to return these articles, the petitioners lastly refused on June 22, 1991. That these articles of dowry had been given to her for her exclusive use and had been handed-over to the petitioners with the condition that they shall be returned to her on demand.
4. The petitioners have challenged the prosecution for offences Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground of want of sanction and Under Section 498A I.P.C. on the ground of jurisdiction of the Court at Kapurthala. Under the provisions of Section 8 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, no prosecution could be launched for offences under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such other officer as the State may appoint, This legal proposition is not challenged by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. In para 9 of the complaint, it has specifically been stated that the respondent had co-habited with Kulwant Singh-petitioner at Mohalla Janakpuri, Ludhiana uptill March 15, 1991. Whatever acts of cruelty were committed towards the respondent were at the marital home of the respondent. For these acts, Only the Courts at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the offence. I, thus, accept the argument of the learned Counsel that the complaint filed at Kapurthala for offence Under Section 498A I.P.C. was not competent.
6. With respect to the offence Under Section 406 I.P.C, there are specific allegations of the articles having been handed-over to the petitioners who are the husband of the respondent and his parents and further that demands had been made but they had refused to return the artices. These allegations constitute a criminal offence and should be tried by the Court at Kapurthala. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can obviously be gone into by the Trial Court.
7. I, thus, allow the petition partly and quash the proceedings Under Sections 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Under Section 498A I.P.C. The respondent shall, however, be at liberty to seek her remedies under the Jaw in the proper Court for offence Under Section 498A I.P.C. and for offences Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after proper sanction. If such a complaint is filed, the Magistrate shall consider the matter of condoning the delay, if any. At the oral request of the learned Counsel, it is directed that on moving of a proper application before the Trial Court, Sant Singh and Gurbachan Kaur petitioners shall be exempted from personal appearance till their presence is required for a specific purpose. Parties, through their Counsel, are directed to appear before the Trial Court on October, 4, 1993. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.