MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGAT Parshad respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against Mangat Ram son of Sohan Lal, Sohan Lal father of Mangat Ram, Parkasho Devi wife of Sohan Lal and Smt. Veena C/o Chaman Lal. Jagat Parshad is resident of Jagadhri whereas Mangat Ram, Sohan Lal and Parkasho Devi are residents of village Bhadaur, tehsil Barnala, district Sangrur. The complaint filed by Jagat Parshad is that Mangat Ram was married to his daughter Sunita Rani who was maltreated after her marriage for bringing inadequate dowry, although he had given a lot of dowry in her marriage. He has mentioned in the complaint a list of the articles which were given by him in dowry to Sunita Rani. It is further mentioned in the complaint that Sunita Rani was murdered by the accused on 9.1.1984 but as they are influentials so no action could be taken against them. He has filed the complaint as the dowry articles left by Sunita Rani are in the custody of the accused. They have misappropriated the same and as they had maltreated the deceased, so both Sections 406 and 498-A are attracted. Shri Randhir Singh, trial Magistrate, Jagadhri summoned the accused vide his order dated 6.12.1985.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this petition in this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint.

(3.) MR . Sarda has further argued that so far as offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the trial Magistrate at Jagadhri does not have territorial jurisdiction. Sunita Rani was married and she lived at Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, district Sangrur after her marriage with her in-laws and if there was any maltreatment it was at Bhadaur and not at Jagadhari. So only Courts at Barnala have territorial jurisdiction and not Courts at Jagadhri.