Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Aggrieved against the order of summoning, the accused/respondents have preferred the revision petition in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide his impugned order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P1), the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has set aside the summoning order and discharged the accused of the offence.

The present petition is filed against the impugned order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P1), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the revision petition, preferred by the accused/respondents, was accepted, the summoning order was set aside and they were discharged of the offence.

The above said order of summoning was assailed by the accused by filing the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the accused/respondents/revisionist, in the Revisional Court, had raised an argument that neither the dowry articles nor any money was entrusted by the complainant to the accused nor any cruelty was alleged to have been committed upon the petitioner, at Ferozepur. It was urged that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 had taken place at Jalandhar. The dowry articles were also entrusted at Jalandhar, hence the Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The Revisional Court has accepted this argument and held that the Court at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to try the offence. The reasoning adopted by the Revisional Court is noticed as under:-

"...9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the file. The perusal of the file shows that the revision petitioners are husband, parents-in-

law and brother-in-law of the respondent/complainant. Further perusal of the file shows that marriage of the respondent/complainant with Vikas Sharma, petitioner No.1 was solemnized at Jalandhar. The alleged dowry articles were entrusted to the revision petitioner/accused at Jalandhar and the alleged cruelty was also caused to the complainant by the accused at Jalandhar. There is no allegation in the complaint that any demand of dowry was raised at Ferozepur or any dowry article was entrusted at Ferozepur or any cruelty was committed by the petitioners to the respondent/complainant at Ferozepur. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the learned CJM has got no jurisdiction to try this case at Ferozepur. Even the perusal of the complaint shows that the revision petitioner subjected cruelty to respondent Bharti Sharma at Jalandhar. So, the learned CJM at Ferozepur has got no jurisdiction to try the complaint under Sections 406/498-A of the IPC. In this regard reliance may be placed upon Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that harassment of wife by husband at place 'N' on account of dowry, wife came to live at Chennai, therefore, not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry. Complaint under section 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Chennai Court has no jurisdiction as it is not continuing offence within meaning of Section 178(C) Cr.P.C. Reliance in Balwinder Kumar Sharma's case (Supra) has also been wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that allegations of cruelty made in the complaint relate to the period when the complainant stayed in her in- law's house at Faridabad. Police of Sonepat had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter complaint quashed with liberty to file at proper place. Reliance in this regard has also been placed upon Hari Prem Rastogi's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that acts of cruelty committed at Meerut-Chandigarh Court has no jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. an offence has to be tried at a place where it was committed. Section 498-A does not fall under any exception given in Cr.P.C. ..."

The Revisional Court, for setting aside the summoning order and discharging the accused of the offence, has relied upon Y.Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police Chennai and Another 2004 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 988. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the Court had not considered the effect of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. in the above said two judgments. Similarly, the judgments relied upon by the Revisional Court had not noticed Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C.

This Court has no hesitation to hold that even though the dowry articles, which are stated to be istri dhan, were entrusted and received at Jalandhar but on demand, the same were required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons at Ferozepur. The Court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction to try the offence. Since the complaint has been instituted at Ferozepur where the accused were bound to return and account for the istri dhan, the Court at Ferozepur has the jurisdiction to try the offence.