DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGEDLY involved in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the petitioners have challenged the cognizance Order dated 4. 12. 2004 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Smt. Anita Sharma, filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur against the accused petitioners wherein she claimed that on 27. 11. 2003 she was married to petitioner No. 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sharma at Jaipur. After the marriage, she left for her matrimonial home situated at Gwalior. She further alleged that initially she was well looked after by the petitioners. However, after some time, they started abusing her for lack of dowry. When she complained to her husband, he did not protect her. Subsequently, the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani), all started physically and mentally mal-treating her. She further alleged that she was locked up in a room and was not given any food by her in-laws. Her father-in-law demanded Rs. 5 lacs and told her to get the said amount from her father. She further alleged that her husband, would come back home after consuming liquor, and in a drunken state, would assault her. When she asked to be sent to her paternal place, her-in-laws told her that she should not come back until and unless she bring the said amount. In January, 2004, when she was sent to her paternal place, her husband came at her paternal home. Her parents tried to reason with him. THEy told him that he should keep his wife with love and affection. However, the behaviour of her husband and her in- laws did not change. On 25. 5. 2004 when her father came to Gwalior, she was not permitted to meet him. On 15. 9. 2004, when she was packed off to her paternal home, she was told not to come back until she brings the money demanded by the in-laws. When she asked for her "stridhan", which were lying at Gwalior, the accused petitioners refused to deliver the same.

(3.) A bare perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 clearly reveals that all the acts of cruelty and the act of criminal breach of trust were committed at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. Not a single act of cruelty is alleged to have been committed at Jaipur. The complainant was allegedly locked up in a room and denied food at Gwalior; the alleged demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lacs by the father-in-law was made at Gwalior; when the complainant's father came to Gwalior, she was denied the right to meet him at Gwalior, when the complainant came back with her brother, she was denied the right to enter the house. Therefore, prima facie all the acts of cruelty were committed at Gwalior. The dowry articles given by the complainant's family and in-laws were lying in the matrimonial home at Gwalior. The refusal to deliver the Stridhan was made at Gwalior. Thus, even the alleged commission of breach of trust was at Gwalior. Therefore, both the offences under Sections 498a & 406 IPC were committed at Gwalior and not at Jaipur.