KIMTI LAL Vs. MOTIA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -husband is claiming quashment of complaint Annexure P-1 and summoning order, Annexure P-2.

(2.) RESPONDENT was married to petitioner on 11.3.1988 at Mubarikpur, District Patiala. Thereafter parties lived in their matrimonial home at village Pipli district Kurukshetra. In the complaint respondent-complainant has averred that she was mal-treated in the matrimonial home. Petitioner and his other relations (against whom also complaint Annexure P-1 was filed) started demanding more dowry and on the count they harassed her. According to her at the time of her marriage dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner as well as to his father, mother, sister and maternal uncle. These dowry articles were entrusted to these accused persons by parents, relatives and friends of the complainant with a clear direction that they should be handed over to the complainant for her use and possession. According to the complainant she was never allowed to use these articles. Many of the dowry articles were taken by the accused persons 1 and 3 against the wishes and consent of the complainant. Thus, these dowry articles constitute 'Istri Dhan' of the complainant and were entrusted to the accused persons for use and possession of the complainant. On 28.2.1989 complainant came to see her mother. On 28.3.1989 she went back to her matrimonial home along with her mother, but they were not allowed to enter the matrimonial home. All efforts of reconciliation failed. The accused persons are misappropriating the articles belonging to the complainant. She made repeated requests to the accused for return of the entire articles constituting her 'Istri Dhan'. Her mother and other relations also made such requests, but dowry articles were not returned. The accused approached the complainant at her House No. 33, Sector 32, Chandigarh for settling the matter on 13.1.1990. There also the complainant and her relatives made requests to return the dowry articles, but the accused did not return the articles on one pretext or the other. Accused has wrongly retained these dowry articles contrary to the directions of the mother and brother of the complainant and the complainant herself. Accused have illegally, dishonestly and mala fidely retained these dowry articles in order to make wrongful gain to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. All the accused are dishonestly using and converting the articles to their own use and are still in their possession. Despite repeated demands, these dowry articles were not returned. She sent a written request through registered A.D. letter, but the accused did not hand over the articles. Hence, she filed complaint under Sections 405 and 406 read with 120-B and Section 34 of the Code against the accused persons.

(3.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel strongly stressed that Chandigarh Court has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the said offence because the marriage was performed at Mubarikpur District Patiala. After marriage, complainant and petitioner lived at village Pipli District Kurukshetra where he is still residing. He has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kurukshetra in which he is paying interim maintenance to the complainant. He has also averred that in reply to this petition, complainant has given her address of Mubarikpur District Patiala and not of Chandigarh. She is not residing or employed at Chandigarh; therefore, under Section 181(4) of the Code, Chandigarh Court has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the said offence. In support of this contention, he has relied on Harmeet Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(2) R.C.R. 610 and Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and another, 1986(2) RCR (Crl.) 441 : 1986(2) C.L.R. 81.