Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 May, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 15252 of 2010
Date of Decision : 18th May, 2010
Pardeep ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
.....
Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`CrPC' - for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 4.8.2009 (P2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana, District Jind as well as the criminal complaint 189 of 18.5.2009 (P1) titled Reena v. Sandeep and others, pending in the said Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate, while passing the summoning order dated 4.8.2009 (P2) has not conducted an inquiry as contemplated by the provisions of Section 202 CrPC. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court at Narwana and, therefore, the learned Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence under Section 200 CrPC was required to postpone the issue of process and conduct an inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 CrPC instead of straightway passing the summoning order (P-
2). In support of his contention, the learned counsel cites SK Bhowmik v. SK Arora 2007(4) RCR (Cr) 671 and Prem Kaur @ Premo v.
Balwinder Kaur 2009(2) RCR (Cr) 4. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court at Narwana in any case 2 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the offence is alleged to have been committed in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and respondent- 2, within the jurisdiction of PS Dhand, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and not at Narwana. In this regard, learned counsel cites Jasjit Singh Bakshi and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 170 (P&B). Lastly, it is contended that there are general allegations of a matrimonial dispute.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same.
The complaint (Annexurre-P.1) on account of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife (respondent No.2) has been filed by respondent-2 in the Court of learned JMIC Narwana. The learned Magistrate noticed the contents of the complaint. It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused in collusion with each other, started harassing her for bringing Rs.40,000/-. On 20.12.2008, they turned her out of the matrimonial home in three wearing clothes. The complainant informed the entire incident to her father. On 22.12.2008, the father of the complainant (respondent No.2) along with Bablu @ Balraj son of Kehar, Gurdev Singh and Nafe Singh went to the in-laws of the complainant where accused-2 namely Ishwar son of Amar Singh demanded Rs.40,000/-. A Panchayat was also convened regarding this matter wherein the accused declined to keep and maintain the complainant until their demands were fulfilled. The accused had threatened the complainant to murder her. The complainant then reported the matter to the Police of Police Station Garhi. The police though assured that action would be taken; however, later refused to take 3 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 any action.
The learned Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence. The complainant who appeared as CW1 fully corroborated the contentions made by her in the complaint (P1) and categorically stated that the accused had been harassing her and demanded more dowry. Inder Singh appeared in the witness box as CW2 and Balraj appeared as CW3. They also corroborated the version of the complainant. Besides the above oral evidence, the complainant placed on record a list of dowry articles. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was sufficient material on record to summon accused-1 to 4 for commission of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short). In the present case the Magistrate has examined the complainant as CW1; besides also examined Inder Singh and Balraj as CW2 and CW3 respectively. The evidence recorded has been considered by the learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.2). The said order is a reasoned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that no inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 CrPC was conducted in the case before issuing the process to the petitioner.
Section 200 CrPC provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Section 202 provides for postponement of the issue of process and holding of any inquiry by the Magistrate himself or by a police officer. It provides that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a 4 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 2(g) CrPC defines `inquiry' to mean every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court' shall inquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This has been done so that innocent persons are not harassed unnecessarily by summoning them in complaint cases. The inquiry, however, as contemplated by Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not to be full dressed trial and is not to be characterized as a trial. The inquiry contemplated would cover recording of evidence, admitting documents which are admissible in evidence and generally completing the record on the basis of which a finding can be reached at as to whether there is sufficient material which would warrant the summoning of an accused or the respondent. The Magistrate, however, in the inquiry to be conducted is not to confine himself to what is produced before him but can also look into the Police record by summoning the same and other necessary material and till such inquiry is completed the issuance of process of summoning is to be postponed.
In the present case the inquiry as contemplated has been conducted by the Magistrate by examining witnesses and recording reasons for summoning the petitioners herein. In SK Bhowmik v. SK Arora 5 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was observed that the degree of formalities of the proceedings and depth of the inquiry are entirely in the discretion of the Magistrate. It was in the facts and circumstances of the said case that the inquiry held therein was found to be insufficient for summoning the accused therein. It was also observed that where the Magistrate is seen to have exercised his discretion judicially the same cannot call for any interference. Besides, the defence of the accused is not the factor which is required to be taken into consideration to call for any interference in the order. Even the irregularity in the procedure under this section i.e. Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not result in any miscarriage of justice, may not call for any interference by a Court. Besides, whether a prima facie case is made out from the evidence recorded or not would be a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate. In Prem Kaur @ Premo v. Balwinder Kaur (supra), this Court set aside the summoning order as the same was issued without an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In the said case, it was noticed that insofar as the petitioners No.1 and 2 in the said case were concerned, there were precise allegations in the complaint and the preliminary evidence against them, therefore, it was observed that it was not a case where any quashment could be ordered and if the said petitioners had a grievance qua the validity of that order they could have recourse to the remedy available to them before the Court of Session. The petition was allowed only qua petitioner No.3 therein and was dismissed qua petitioners No.1 and 2. Therefore, evidently the standard and nature of inquiry depends on the facts of each case. The inquiry in the present case having been conducted, the contention of the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate 6 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 after taking cognizance of the offence, was liable to postpone the issue of process and conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC instead of straightway summoning the petitioner (accused) merely on the basis of preliminary evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC, is without any basis.
As regards the territorial jurisdiction, it is contended that the incident had taken place not within the jurisdiction of Narwana as no incident had taken place there. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Jasjit Singh Bakshi's case (supra). In the present case, the complainant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Narwana. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant is at present residing at Village Kharal which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court at Narwana. Besides, the dowry articles which were given to accused-1 and 2 at the time of 'Muklava', were given at Narwana. Therefore, the entrustment of the dowry articles is at Kharal which is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Narwana. Even otherwise the dowry articles are liable to be accounted for where the complainant resides, in view of the provisions of Section 181(4) CrPC. Section181 provides for place of trail in case of certain offences. Sub Section (4) thereof provides that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject matter of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. Therefore, as per the allegations in the complaint (P1),the property which is the subject matter of the offence i.e. the dowry articles, were received in village Kharal; besides are liable to be accounted for also at 7 Crl Misc. No.M-15252 of 2010 Kharal, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Narwana. As such, the provisions of Section 181(4) CrPC are clearly applicable. In Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Parsad Ojha and others (2007) 5 SCC 786, it was held that as regards the offence of criminal misappropriation, the Court within whose jurisdiction the property had been entrusted or was required to be accounted for, could take cognizance. In the case of Jasjit Singh Bakshi (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, also it has been held that the Court where Streedhana is required to be returned, would have the jurisdiction. Therefore, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court at Narwana has the jurisdiction, is devoid of any merit. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are general and vague in nature, is not substantiated by any material on record.
Therefore, in the circumstances, it may be noticed that the learned Magistrate had inquired into the matter by recording the statements of three witnesses. The summoning order has been passed with due application of mind. The court at Narwana has the jurisdiction. Besides, the allegations as made, cannot be said to be vague.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
18.5.2010 (S.S. Saron) ASR/hsp Judge