SURINDER KAUR ALIAS NAMRATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife has preferred this petition against the order vide which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has held that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, and that case should have filed in the Court at Malerkotla.

(2.) THE petitioner married accused Kirpal Singh on 6.5.1990 at Amritsar. At the time of marriage, 'Stridhan' articles worth Rs. 5 lacs in the shape of cash, gold, ornaments, bonds and other house-hold articles, as mentioned in the list attached with the FIR, were entrusted to the father-in-law of the petitioner and Kanwaljit Kaur, the sister-in-law of the complainant. There was a discord in the matrimonial relations due to variety of reasons. Suffice it to mention that the allegations by the petitioner were that she was assaulted, ill-treated and tortured for extorting more valuables and cash from her or her parents. It has also been alleged that her husband performed second marriage with Mandeep Kaur alias Deepti. Further, she alleged that her husband had attempted to kill her. Efforts were made to bring about reconciliation. As per the FIR filed by the petitioner, she along with her parents went to the house of her in-laws at Malerkotla for sorting out the issue. At that time she and her parents were insulted and were turned out of the house by the accused. At that time, she demanded all the 'Stridhan' articles, but the accused declined to return those articles. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. It appears that on the basis of that, FIR was registered under Section 498-A IPC.

(3.) ON the basis of the investigation, charge against the accused was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was of the view that the offence under Section 498-A was committed at Malerkotla, therefore that Court has jurisdiction to try offence. In so far as it pertains to offence under Section 406 IPC he was of the view that since the father of the petitioner made a statement before him that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lac was given to the accused Kirpal Singh and his father, on their assurance to return it, that payment of amount was by way of loan and was not on account of dowry. Thus, according to him, he has no territorial jurisdiction.