AIJAZUDDIN QURAISHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision has been directed against the order 4-8-1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 7505 of 1992 dismissing the revisionist application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try complaint.

(2.) THE complaint was filed under Section 6 of the Dowary Prohibition Act read with Section 406, I. P. C. with the allegation that the marriage of the complainant was settled with Dr. Aijaz:uddin. Accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. It was further said that during negotiations of marriage all the accused made several demands of dowry as consideration for marriage. Under compulsion the parents of the complainant fulfilled their all demands. A sum of Rs. 90,886 was spent in the marriage. Several present, valuable articles and ornaments were given in consideration of the marriage. THE marriage took place on 28-4-1992. THE complainant want to reside with the accused at Yaranasi and lived there up to 3-5-1992 accused made further demand of rupees one lac. She showed her inability to bring this amount from her parents whereupon she was tortured physically and mentally, treated cruelly and finally on 2-5-1992 she was divorced. She was deprived of all the marriage presents and was turned out of the house only 'with the clothes which she was wearing.

(3.) RELIANCE on behalf of the opposite party has been placed upon Hansraj Chaudhary v. Smt. Sarita, 1992 UP Cr. R. 417: 1992 JIC 679 (All ). In that case complaint for offence punishable under Sections 499-A, 496, 420/34, I. P. C. was filed at Jhansi. The marriage between the parties took place at Jhanasi The marriage presents were also given at Jhansi. In that case. It was alleged that she was treated with cruelty by her husband at the place of her husband at Madhya Pradesh. It was held by this Court that in view of Sections 177, 181 (4) and 387, Cr. P. C. complaint for offence under Sec tion 406, I. P. C. could have been filed at Jhansi but not the complaint under Section 498-A, I. P. C. In so far as the offence under Section 406 was concerned it was held that the articles were handed over to the accused at Jhansi. It is one of the basic principles of law that the property which is given in the entrustment, is liable to be returned at the place at which it was given the entrustment. Thus there can be no dispute that the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. was triable at Jhansi and the C. J. M. Jhansi had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint so far as it related to the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. In the instant case the presents are said to have been given to the accused at Gorakhpur. These marriage presents are said to have been given for the complainant. Accused were, therefore, under obligation to return those marriage presents at Gorakhpur. The courts of Gorakhpur would have therefore, jurisdiction to try the complaint in so far as Section 406, I. P. C. was concerned. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibi tion Act relates to the return of dowry given for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. Under this section also the persons who received dowry in connection with whose marriage it was given are liable to hand it over to the woman concerned. Since the dowry was received at Gorakhpur and in terms of Section 181 (4) of the Cr. P. C, the dowry was to be returned at Gorakhpur. I am of the view that the court of Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to try the case under Dowry Prohibition Act as well.