BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhupinder Singh and the other petitioners, who are his close relatives, have sought quashing of the First Information Report, No. 29 dated 1-5-1990, registered against them at Police Station Lalru, for an offence under sections 49R-A and 406, Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a complaint filed by Inder Singh respondent No.2 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura which was forwarded to the Police Station u/s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts briefly stated from the complaint, leading to the registration of case, are that Baljit Kaur daughter of InderSingh, respondent No.2 was married to Bhupinder Singh on 11-3-1990 at village Jharmari, tehsil Rajpura. Gurminder Singh is the brother; Baldev Singh is the father; Smt. Baido is the mother and Sukhi is the sister of Baldev Singh petitioner. Smt. Amar Kaur is the wife of Gurminder Singh while Sanu Singh is the father of Amar Kaur. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the petitioners had raised demand for more articles of dowry. The articles detailed in Annexure A were given as dowry. After the marriage, Baljit Kaur was maltreated by her husband and his other relatives. She was even given inhuman treatment and was also tortured and given beatings many times. In fact, Bhupinder Singh was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage. Proceedings for annulment of marriage u/s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act are already pending. Baljit Kaur had been deprived of dowry articles which had been entrusted to Baldev Singh and his relatives at the time of marriage.

(3.) All the petitioners belong to village Chhappar tehsil and district Yamunanagar in Haryana. She had stayed with her in-laws and whatever maltreatment was given to her, it was at her in-laws house at village Chhapar. Police Station Lalru has no jurisdiction to investigate this case and the Courts at Patiala have no jurisdiction to try this cause. On this ground alone, so far as the offence u/s. 498/-A is concerned, it has to be quashed against all the petitioners.