The jurisdiction of courts to try offences under Sections 498A, IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, depends on the place of occurrence of the alleged offences, and allegations of misappropriation of Istri Dhan must be specific and well-founded to establish a prima facie case.

J.S.Sekhon, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 for quashing the case registered against them vide FIR No. 76 of 1987 for the offence under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code, besides under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , at Police Station Julana, at the instance of Mst Naraini Devi wife of Suresh Kumar petitioner.

2. Mst. Naraini Devi was married with Suresh Kumar petitioner on 10th May, 1983 at Julana Mandi, district Jind. She cohabited with her husband at Delhi for about nine months. Her father allegedly gave dowry to her in marriage according to his capacity. Shri Laxmi Narain is her father-in-law while Smt. Bharpati Devi is her mother-in-law. Dinesh Kumar petitioner No. 4 is the brother of her husband. Her in-laws also gifted some jewellery and ornaments on the occasion of her marriage. On subsequent occasions also, her father gave some more gifts to his daughter which she has kept in her husbands house at Delhi. She lodged the First Information Report alleging that the accused-petitioners are greedy persons and her parents-in-law started saying her from the very first day of her marriage that she had brought less dowry. The accused used to pick up quarrel with her and used to give her beatings. She was not provided with meals and subjected to mental and physical torture on several occasions. She was then turned out of her matrimonial home about 2-1/2 years prior to the lodging of the FIR while her jewellery and other articles were retained and misappropriated. She further alleged having tried to settle the matter with the intervention of the respectables, but the accused did not drop the demand for scooter and hard cash. In Annexure A-1 she has mentioned the misappropriation of golden jewellery as under :-

"1. Gold Ring 1

2. Gold Rings 4

3. Gold bangles 4

4. Jhumka 1 pair

5. Har 1

5a. Pandel 1

6. Sarees 15

7. Household articles valued Rs. 15,000/-

8. Cash paid Rs. 25,000/-

3. During investigation of the case, the police tried to arrest the petitioner which resulted in approaching them the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, for anticipatory bail, but their request was declined. Under these circumstances, the accused have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings, inter alia, contending that Mst. Naraini Devi (hereinafter referred to as the `complainant) had also filed complaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-1 before the Delhi Police (Crime against Women/anticipatory cell) New Delhi on 27th February, 1987, against her husband and parents-in-law alleging maltreatment and harassment and that Police Station Julana or the Courts at Jind had no jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , as all these offences allegedly took place in the area of Delhi. It was also maintained that allegations in the FIR regarding entrustment of articles of dowry or misappropriation of Istri Dhan are too vague to prove any prima facie case and that the delay of more than 2 years in lodging the complaint clearly shows that these proceedings were instituted in order to harass the petitioners. It was also contended that the misappropriation of Istri Dhan of the complainant by the petitioners was not even alleged in the complaint lodged with Delhi police.

4. In the written statement filed by the Superintendent of Police Jind, on behalf of the State of Haryana, the allegations of the complainant in the FIR were supported. It was also maintained that the Courts at Jind and Police Station Julana had jurisdiction to try, register and investigate the case, as the case may be, as the marriage of the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) took place at Julana and most of the Istri Dhan of the complainant was received by the accused at Julana.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the par