NIRMAL BHASIN Vs. ALKA BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Alka Bhasin filed against five persons arrayed as accused therein, a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for breach of trust in respect of stridhan dowry articles, for cruel and inhuman treatment meted out to her in her matrimonial home after marriage. Accused No. 1 is the husband of the complainant/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, accused No. 4 is the married sister of accused No. 1 and daughter of accused Nos. 2 and 3, while accused No. 5 is the go in between intermediary; who brought the two families together and settled the marriage. It is stated in the complaint that stridhan dowry articles duly entered in the list Annexure 'a', were made over to all the five persons at the time of marriage in Chandigarh and they refused to return the same at Ludhiana in response to the demand made from them at Ludhiana in the last week of August, 1987.

(2.) OUT of five accused aforesaid three accused in parents-in-law and sister's in-law of the complainant and the remaining two in husband and the go in between intermediary have filed separately two quashing petitions bearing numbers 3016-M and 3882-M both of 1988 respectively for quashing of the criminal complaint Annexure P-1 and the summoning order Annexure P-2 on the grounds that the Criminal Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction, that the complaint Annexure P-1 is, in fact, a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by accused No. 1 against the respondent at Dehra Dun and that the respondent has executed in favour of the petitioners arrayed as accused in complaint filed by her a receipt for return of stridhan dowry articles which is duly attested by an Advocate.

(3.) THE law regarding the quashing is well settled by now. Complaint Annexure P-1 must disclose prima facie that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. A bare reading of the complaint aforesaid is sufficient to warrant the conclusion aforesaid. The plea of receipt obtained; while returning stridhan articles to the respondent, of the complaint being a counter blast to divorce proceedings and want of jurisdiction in Ludhiana Courts may be urged by the petitioners before the learned trial Court in defence arranged by them before it, but, cannot be the basis for quashing of the complaint. In from of the observations made in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447, Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad and Anr. , AIR 1972 SC 484, Kurukshetra University and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , AIR 1977 SC 2229, State of Bihar and Anr. v. JAC Saldanna and Ors. , AIR 1980 SC 326, Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. , AIR 1985 SC 628, Eastern Spinning Mills Shri Virendra Kumar Sarda and Anr. v. Rajiv Poddar and Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 1668 and J. P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 833, the statutory right of police to investigate into the circumstances of the alleged cognizable offence and file a challan and thereafter prosecute the petitioners cannot be interfered with by the exercise of the extraordinary powers envisaged in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. . Demand for return of dowry articles having been made and declined at Ludhiana towards the end of August 1987, Criminal Courts at Ludhiana have per se jurisdiction to summon the accused and proceed with the complaint.