JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE his order of January 6, 1992, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, charged the petitioners herein, firstly under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, for their having subjected Harjeet Kaur complainant with cruelty by demanding more dowry from her parents, in the month of October, 1990, and secondly, under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for their having demanded dowry from the parents of Harjeet Kaur, in that month.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the abovesaid- order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petition has been contested on behalf of the State.

(3.) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the parties resided at Kaithal as husband and wife and if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be correct for the sake of argument even then the offence of cruelty is alleged to have been committed at Kaithal and, therefore, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, had no jurisdiction to frame the charge under section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order would show, (i) that the marriage between Harjeet Kaur and Jatinder Singh was solemnised at Jind on January 19, 1986; (ii) that the parties resided as husband and wife at Kaithal upto December 19, 1987; (iii) that from January, 1988 to June, 1988, the complainant resided at Jind with her parents, and (iv) that the complainant again resided with her husband at Kaithal from July, 1990 to October, 24, 1990. Therefore, the petitioners never resided with the complainant at Jind and hence they had no occasion to subject her to cruelty at sind. The offence under section 498-A, if at all, was committed at Kaithal and not at Jind. In this situation, the Court at Jind has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant-wife under Section 498-A IPC.