Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jangir Singh And Ors. vs Harpal Kaur on 4 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: II(1995)DMC234
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1 This is a petition filed by Jangir Singh and three others under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint dated 13th May, 1993, and the consequent summoning order dated 21st December, 1993.
2. Smt. Harpal Kaur was married to Amrik Singh in March, 1989. Jangir Singh-applicant is stated to be father of Amrik Singh; Jeet Kaur mother of Amrik Singh and Balwant Kaur, Niranjan Kaur and Atma Singh are the sisters and brother of Amrik Singh respectively. Harpal Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa with respect of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34, Indian Penal Code. It had been stated that at the time of her marriage with Amrik Singh articles for a sum of rupees one and a half lakhs were given. Petitioners who are of greedy nature were not satisfied with the dowry and they were harassing her. They had demanded a buffalo and Rs. 10,000/-. Harpal Kaur was beaten and kept in a room without food. She was insulted and taunted. The paragraph No. 7 the complainant Harpal Kaur mentioned :
"That due to religious faith the marriage took place at Bhoini Sahib, but the dowry got by the accused from the parents of the complainant (Jiwan Nagar Tehsil and District Sirsa) and the mental torture is also continuing to the complainant at Village Jiwan Nagar, so this Hon'ble Court is competent to hear the complaint."
3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa on appraisal of the preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioner and others with respect of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Court at Sirsa had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as according to him no part of the transaction or alleged harassment took place within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Sirsa. He argued that marriage took place in Ludhiana District. The petitioners do not reside at Sirsa and question of misappropriation or harassment to have been caused within the jurisdiction of the Court of Sirsa, does not arise.
5. At this stage, the assertions of the respondent have to be looked into and he has specifically asserted that the dowry was given to the petitioner and others at District Sirsa and that mental torture had also continued at village Jiwan Nagar falling within the jurisdiction of District Sirsa. In face of these assertions for purposes of the present order, it cannot be held that Court at Sirsa had no jurisdiction. There are specific assertion of entrustment within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sirsa. She has been living and is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sirsa. In the sequence of events, it is clear that she was left to live with the parents or not allowed to live in the matrimonial house because she did not bring sufficient dowry. This would be harassment for purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. One can safely conclude that the Court at Sirsa has the jurisdiction. The facts of the present case is near to that of the decision of Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 189 in which learned Single Judge has observed as under:
"The above referred provision leaves no manner of doubt that physical or mental harassment to wife by her husband or parents in law would be well covered under the provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. As noticed, one of the allegations in the complaint is that the wife was left at the house of her parents after she was given beatings. She was also told to bring dowry and cash. Harassment to her seems to be a continuing one. It stated when demand for dowry and harassment was made outside Charkhi Dadri and has continued when she was left at Charkhi Dadri in order to get dowry and, therefore, it may be possible to show during trial that the offence was partly committed and continues to be committed at the place where she has been left, i,e. Charkhi Dadri. So, it seems that the Court at Charkhi Dadri has the jurisdiction to try the offence of cruelty."
6. Consequently, the said assertion so made must be repelled.
7. In that event, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are old parents and their personal appearance may be exempted. Keeping in view the old age of the petitioners 1 and 2, it is directed that on the appropriate application being filed in the Trial Court, it will exempt the personal appearance of the petitioners 1 and 2 on such condition as may be reasonable and appropriate.
8. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed.