TARSEM SINGH Vs. AMRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner herein is the husband while the second petitioner is the father in law, the third petitioner is the mother-in-law and the fourth petitioner is the sister-in law, respectively, of the respondent - Amrit Kaur. The respondent herein filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Batala (District Gurdaspur) against the petitioners herein under Section 498-A/34, Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 5-7-1987. The allegations in the complaint are as follows : That immediately after the marriage petitioner No. 1 and the other petitioners making demands of cash and other household goods started harassing the respondent and said that they were in need of Rs. 20,000.00 that she informed the same to her father who complied with the illegal demand of the petitioners so that she could live in her marital home, that after the passage of sometime the petitioners again demanded from the respondent Rs. 10,000.00 and asked her to bring the same from her father so that they can purchase land; that her father once again met their illegal demand; that about eight months back the petitioners again made an illegal demand for Rs. 10,000.00 sent the respondent to her parents' house; that she informed her father about the demand of the petitioners but, he refused to meet this demand; that when she informed this to the petitioners accused they turned her out of their home, and that she had come to her parents' house that on 2-2-1994 when the father of the respondent and certain other persons along with the respondent went to village Wadala Kalan and made a request to the petitioners that the respondent should be allowed to remain in the marital home the petitioners refused and, therefore, the respondent returned to her village. The respondent herein and two other witnesses were examined on the side of the respondent before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and he came to the conclusion that the respondent herein had succeeded in prima facie proving his case against the petitioners and ordered them to be summoned under Section 498-A. Indian Penal Code. The order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate is Annexure P-2. It is for quashing the complaint by the respondent, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the proceedings arising out of the same that the petitioners have come forward with this petition.

(2.) The petitioners have urged two grounds in support of their case. The first is that the allegations made in the complaint made by the respondent are so vague that no offence under Section 498-A could be made out. The second is that the alleged demand and the harassment are stated to have been made in the village Wadalakalan within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala (District Amritsar) and so the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Batala (District Gurdaspur) has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the ordinary place of enquiry and trial shall be where the offence was committed and, therefore, the Court at Batala has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case, since no part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the complaint is not vague but mentions that all the petitioners accused had harassed the respondent, made illegal demands, and turned her out of her marital home and, therefore, a prime facie case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioners. He also contends that the harassment and cruelty can be at more than one place and that the cause of action also contends that the consequences of the cruelty ensue. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contends that when the petitioners made an illegal demand on the respondent and turned her out of the marital home she had to go to her parental home and inform her parents of the illegal demands made by the petitioners and therefore so along as the demand is not met, she has to remain in the parental home and, therefore, the harassment also continues and so, the Court at Batala of District Gurdaspur also has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.