IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that the failure to return the stridhan of the deceased constitutes a breach of trust, as the articles were entrusted to the accused by the deceased during her lifetime. The court also emphasized that the police have the authority to investigate any cognizable offence, regardless of territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Respondent No.2 (informant) filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb stating that his daughter Sonia had married to Santosh Kumar on 11.12.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The present petitioners (accused before the learned Trial Court) were harassing, maltreating and ill-treating his daughter Sonia for not bringing sufficient dowry. Sonia consumed poison and died on 22.10.2018 in her matrimonial home. An FIR No. 258/2018, dated 22.10.2018 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused failed to return all the articles given by the complainant to her daughter at the time of marriage and they had misused the same. They had no right to retain the stridhan of the deceased. The complainant moved an application before the Superintendent of Police who directed him to go to the house of the accused and ask them to return the stridhan as per the list. The accused stated that they would not return the articles lying with them. Hence, it was prayed that the action be taken against the accused. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation.

2. The petitioners filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out of the same. It was asserted that a false case was registered by the complainant against the petitioners alleging misappropriation of the stridhan of deceased Sonia Devi. The petitioners did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated. The criminal proceedings have been initiated to harass the petitioners which amounts to abuse of the process of law. No case is made out against the petitioners as stridhan was never entrusted to the petitioners and they have not misappropriated the same for their benefit. The articles were handed over to the police. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was also received by the complainant in lieu of the gold articles and a memo was prepared to this effect. The FIR was lodged at Amb which is 60-65 kilometres from the house of the petitioners. The police at Police Station, Amb do not have jurisdiction over the matter as the petitioners are residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Haroli. The learned Trial Court failed to apply its mind and issued the process mechanically. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

3. Respondent No.1 has filed a reply denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that FIR No. 42, dated 5.4.2019 was registered against the petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station, Amb as per the directions of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una. The police conducted the investigation and collected relevant material. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners before the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no. 1-State and Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-informant.

5. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no entrustment to the petitioners. The articles were returned during the investigation, hence continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The Court at Amb hve no jurisdiction to try the case as the petitioners are residing at Haroli which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Amb. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.

6. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1-State submitted that the articles were required to be returned to the petitioners within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Amb. Hence, the Court at Amb