TILAK RAJ SOOD Vs. SUDESH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Sudesh Sood filed complaint against her husband Tilak Raj, Ashok Kumar her husband's brother, Naresh Sood wife of Ashok Kumar and her husband's sister Santosh Sood under Sections 406, 120-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, who after recording preliminary evidence dismissed the complaint against the accused other than Tilak Raj and only summoned the said accused under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 2nd of February, 1991. Aggrieved against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, Sudesh Sood and complainant filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who, vide his order dated 13.7.1992 modified the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the extent that trial shall also proceed against Tilak Raj accused both under Section 406 as well as under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below Tilak Raj accused has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated according to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was married to Tilak Raj on 15.2.1982 at Patiala according to Hindu rites. After their marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife at the house of Tilak Raj accused in Chandigarh till 1984, before she shifted to Mohali out of the said wed-lock a male child was born who at the time of the filing of the complaint was five years old and was in custody of the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that at the time of her marriage with Tilak Raj accused, her parents gave sufficient articles of dowry which were entrusted to the accused for use and benefit of the complainant. Besides the complainant was given ornaments as mentioned in Annexure 'B' as Wari in presence of Hari Chand Sood and other witnesses and the entire dowry was entrusted to the accused. However, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and the complainant was mal-treated by the accused when she resided with them at Chandigarh and Mohali as husband's brothers, brother's wife and sister very frequently visited Mohali. She was insulted and beaten. The complainant's relations visited her and she told them about her miserable life. A demand of Rs. 20,000/- in cash, T.V. set and a scooter was also made by the accused. She told the accused that her parents have already spent money beyond their capacity and after death of her father, her mother was not in a position to give anything more. It is further alleged that the ornaments and the costly clothes were kept by the accused. The complainant's brother collected Panchayat and approached the accused on 13.12.1987 but they were all insulted and demands of Rs. 20,000/- in cash, T.V. set and scooter were made by the accused. Panchayat also requested the accused to return the articles of dowry as the same were personal property of the complainant but the latter refused to do so.

(3.) ON behalf of Tilak Raj accused petitioner, it was submitted that offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are separate offences independent of each other and that the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try these offences together. It was further submitted that allegations in the complaint concerning the commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code indicate that, if at all, the Courts having jurisdiction over the territories of Mohali or Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the said offences as the complainant and Tilak Raj accused lived together there from 1982 to 14th of November, 1987 and not the Courts at Patiala.