BAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAWA Singh and others have brought this partition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fro quashing of criminal complaint Annexure P-1 and all the consequent proceedings carried out.

(2.) JINDER Kaur, respondent No. 2 is the wife of Surinder Singh, petitioner No. 6 All the other petitioners are close relations of Surinder Singh. To elaborate, Baba Singh is the father, Smt. Mohinder Kaur is the mother. Joginder Singh is the brother while Balraj and Neelam are the sisters of Surinder Singh. The marriage of Jinder Kaur was solemnised with Surinder Singh at Ambala City in the year 1981. Out of the wedlock two children were born but unfortunately both of them died. Jinder Kaur and Surinder Singh cohabited at village Gillabwal Kila, tehsil Batal, district Gurdaspur. It has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioners assured the complainant's father that they have no demand and that the marriage will be simple. Ultimately, a large marriage party was brought and in all Rs. 25,000/- were spent on their entertainment. Articles described in para 8 of the complaint were given as dowry and these were entrusted to all the petitioners. Respondents gave an assurance that these articles were being received by them as trustees of Jatinder Kaur and will be handed over to her on reaching the village. About seven days after the marriage, the ornaments were taken from her on the pretext of law and order situation prevailing in Punjab. Accepting that statement she did not grumble for taking away of the ornaments . Thereafter, on the instigation of his relatives, Surinder Singh had give beatings to Jinder Kaur on a number of occasions. She however, continued to suffer this inhuman treatment. Ultimately in the month of June 1985, she was turned out of the matrimonial home and came to her parents at Ambala. The parents of Jinder Kaur waited for some time so that the petitioners might see reason but without any effect. When the petitioners were approached to return the articles of dowry of Jinder Kaur, they refused to return the same. Jinder Kaur brought a petition user Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she was granted maintenance on December 21, 1988.

(3.) I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners so far as offence under section 498 - A is concerned. The Court at Ambala had no jurisdiction and even if the statement of Jinder Kaur is taken at its face value, all the acts of cruelty and maltreatment were committed at village Gilawal Kila, tehsil Batala. The complaint, the FIR and the consequent proceedings under Section 498 - A IPC against all the petitioners deserve to be quashed on the at short ground and I order accordingly.