Dismissed

Rajvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2010CRM-M/11740/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The Court held that the Amritsar jurisdiction was valid as the marital home, dowry transfer, and wife's residence were all located there, distinguishing cited precedents based on differing factual matrices.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajvir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 14.5.2010

¶4

Rajvir Singh and others

¶5

......Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ****

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.88 dated 18.2.2009 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Amritsar and other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶13

Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that petitioner No.1 got married with complainant on 4.2.2006. Complainantwife was working as teacher in Government High School, Lohara-Manekrai and was not living happily in the village and pressuring her husband to shift to Jalandhar City. There were some differences between complainant and her husband and she left her matrimonial home and went with her father on 25^th December, 2008 to Amritsar. Even on asking of the husband, she did not come back. She filed complaint on 6.1.2009 to SSP Amritsar. Later on, the petitioner-husband filed a petition for “Restitution of Conjugal Rights” and petition under the “Guardian and Wards Act” for custody of minor son in January 2009.

¶14

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [2]

¶15

The inquiry was conducted on the basis of complaint dated 6.1.2009 submitted by wife and on the basis of that complaint, FIR No.88 under Sections 406/498-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar on 18^th February, 2009.

¶16

The present petition has been filed mainly on two grounds i.e. (i) territorial jurisdiction (ii) no offence is made out under Section 498A IPC.

¶17

Mr.Kang, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court at Amritsar lacks territorial jurisdiction to Register FIR against the petitioners and that the matter is no longer res -integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Jagjit Singh Rishi and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 170 and therefore, all proceedings arising out of the said FIR are without jurisdiction and abuse of the process of law. Mr.Kang further submits that the FIR was registered at Amritsar whereas no mal-treatment and torture took place at Amritsar. Neither marriage was solemnized nor any dispute arose between the parties at Amritsar. Mr. Kang also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 835 (P&H) with regard to offence under Section 498-A IPC as the said FIR is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Kang also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs. State of Punjab 2009 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 956 wherein it has been held that giving dowry to bride at the time of marriage does not amount entrustment to husband.

¶18

Learned counsel for the complainant has denied the submissions

¶19

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [3]

¶20

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that cause of action accrued at Amritsar and complaint was also lodged at Amritsar on the basis of which a detailed inquiry was conducted by the police which was approved by SP Amritsar and on the basis of that report, said FIR was registered. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that all the dowry articles were given to the present petitioner in presence of the other co-accused. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Gaganpreet Kaur Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police U.T.Chandigarh and others 2009(1) R.C.R.(Crl.) 394 to support his contention and also submits that as per Section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C., dowry articles are required to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence and therefore, Amritsar where the wife is residing, was having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

¶21

Written statements filed on behalf of the respondents are on

¶22

record.

¶23

As per the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the matter was investigated thoroughly by the local police on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant and the petitioners also joined the investigation and on hearing the complainant as well as the petitioners, the above-said FIR was registered under Section 406/498-A IPC at Amritsar.

¶24

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record.

¶25

In this case, the mariage took place on 4.2.2006 at Amritsar

¶26

and all dowry articles and Stridhan were entrusted to the accused at Amritsar only. The Court at Amritsar has territorial jurisdiction in view of

¶27

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [4]

¶28

the provisions under Section 178(b) Cr.P.C. Section 178(b) Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:

¶29

“ “178. Place of inquiry or trial.xx xx xx xx xxx

¶30

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or;

¶31

As per Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. also Court at Amritsar has

¶32

jurisdiction. Section 181(4) is reproduced as under:

¶33

“181. Place of trial in case of certain offences

¶34

xx xx xx xx (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation

¶35

or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired

¶36

into or tried by a court within whose local

¶37

jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

¶38

Xx xx xx

¶39

The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the case in hand as in Rajesh Kumar's case (supra),

¶40

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [5]

¶41

the wife was subjected to cruelty at Rohtak and she came to reside at Jhajjar. FIR under Section 406/498-A IPC was registered at Jhajjar and the application was transferred from Jhajjar to Rohtak by holding that the Rohtak Court had jurisdiction. Similarly, in Gaganpreet Kaur's case (supra), dowry articles were given to the accused at Delhi, complainant was maltreated and tortured for demand of dowry at Delhi and later on she along with her minor child came to reside at Chandigarh. The complaint was lodged by the complainant at Chandigarh. Chandigarh Police transferred the complaint to Delhi Police. The order of Chandigarh police was set aside by holding that as per provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. dowry articles are to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence and the Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction where the wife was residing.

¶42

In the present case, admittedly marriage took place at Amritsar, all dowry articles were given at Amritsar only and complainantwife was also residing at Amritsar. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant as well as the petitioners remained for some time at Jalandhar after marriage and Amritsar Court had no jurisdiction and the complaint should have been filed at Jalandhar. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case as in those cases the complaint was filed where the complainant-wife was not residing or the dowry articles were given. In the present case, the couple remained at Jalandhar only for some time and on this ground it cannot be said that the Court at Jalandhar had jurisdiction and FIR registered at Amrtisar should be quashed on this

¶43

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [6]

¶44

ground.

¶45

Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court where the goods entrusted are to be returned. The dowry articles entrusted to the husband or his family members are required to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence. Complainant -wife is residing at Amritsar and as such Court at Amritsar has jurisdiction. This issue has been examined in extenso by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in Samarat Kaushik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 328 and Shiv Dayal Arora v. Smt. Renu Arora 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 10. In Samarat Kaushik's case (supra), it was observed as under:

¶46

“ In the present case, we are concerned with criminal breach of trust of Stridhan property. When articles are given by way of gifts to a bride at the time of marriage, no one can contemplate that a situation would arise in future when a demand for return of stridhan property from the husband or his other relations would be made and in the event of articles not being returned, a criminal prosecution would be launched. In fact at the time of marriage, every one wishes and prays that the new couple would lead along and happy married life. Therefore, the existence or coming into being of a prior agreement of even understanding that in the event of break up of marriage or for some unforeseen circumstances, the articles given by way of gifts would be required to be returned at a particular place is an

¶47

Crl.Misc. No.M-11740 of 2009 [7]

¶48

almost impossible situation. The relations and friends who give gifts to the bride would shudder at the very idea that contingency may arise from the husband or his other relations. Therefore, so far as an offence of criminal breach of trust regarding stridhan property is concerned, there cannot be any prior agreement for return thereof at a particular place. If the last clause of sub-section is interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned counsel, it will become redundant in so far as the offence of criminal breach of trust of stridhan property is concerned. Therefore, in order to give full meaning and sense to the last part of sub-section (4) of Section 181, it will be proper to hold that without there being any prior agreement to that effect the Court at the place where the property is required to be returned will also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.”

¶49

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the legal position, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶50

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶51

May 14, 2010.

¶52

raghav

Rajvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Verma @ Vicky and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Atma Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suman and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Karanbir Singh Alias Karan and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarpanch Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others