JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh, J. - What is the true interpretation of the words "or was required to be returned or accounted for" as appearing in section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended, in their application to disputes relating to dowry items is the crucial question posed in this case. A matrimonial dispute has given rise to the present petition filed by the petitioner Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia (father of Manjit Singh, husband) under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for quashing of First Information Report No. 149; dated May 14, 1985, under sections 405/406, Indian Penal Code, of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The question appears to be reintegrate as no direct precedent on the point has been cited before this Court by either party.

2. A First Information Report bearing No. 149, dated May 14, 1985, was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, on an application moved by respondent No. 2 (wife). A copy of the First Information Report has been produced along with the present petition as Annexure F/l. The case of the petitioner in the present petition is that the First Information Report aforesaid had been got registered at Amritsar with mala fide intention and ulterior motive, by concealing the fact that the marriage between Manjit Singh and respondent No. 2 was solemnized at Delhi and the articles of dowry were also entrusted to the petitioner and his co-accused (including Manjit Singh husband) at Delhi. The averment is that this concealment was done with a view to dodge the Police Authorities at Amritsar into registering a case there. It is not disputed on both hands that the marriage of the couple was solemnized at Delhi on April 15, 1984 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as April 15, 1985). In regard to the articles of dowry, the allegation in the First Information Report is that these were given at the time of the marriage. However, the stand now taken up in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent wife, to the present petition is that a Draft of Rs. 10, 000/- and two big V.I.P. Bags containing valuable sarees and ornaments were delivered to the petitioner at Amritsar on April 1, 1984 i.e. about 2 weeks before the marriage, when the alliance was settled and the remaining articles were agreed upon to be delivered at the time of the marriage which was solemnized at Delhi. 1t is further stated in the petition that a Police Party of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, went to the house of the petitioner at Delhi and took into possession all the household articles belonging to the petitioner, as per Recovery Memos (Copies Annexure P/2 and P/3). The petition makes a reference to certain persons, who are aware of the facts of the matter and copies of their affidavits have been annexed. The substance of these affidavits is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Delhi and the dowry articles were also delivered at Delhi, without any special demand having been made. It may be observed here that it is not disputed that a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the husband against the respondent wife for the grant of a decree of divorce is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The crux of the grievance made in the petition is that the impugned First Information Report could not be registered at Amritsar as the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Delhi, the alleged articles of dowry were given at Delhi and the couple never resided at Amritsar. The contention is that the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust, if at all, was committed at Delhi and not at Amritsar and the Courts at Amritsar having no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the forum of adjudication could not be shifted to Amritsar by registration of the impugned First Information Report at that place. The prayer made in the petition is for the quashing of the said First Information Report.

3. During the course of the argument