The court held that the trial court at Hoshiarpur had no jurisdiction to try the offense under Section 498-A IPC as it was a different offense from Sections 405 and 406 IPC.

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

1. Smt. Nisha complainant was married with Bipan Kumar - on 27th September, 1984 at Hoshiarpur according to Hindu religious riles. It is a alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents and sisters of the accused accompanied the marriage party and the father of the complainant gave gifts and ornaments worth Rs. 45,000/- in dowry besides some other, articles fully mentioned in Annexure "A" attached with the complaint, All these articles have been illegally detained by the accused respondent at Phagwara. Soon after the marriage, the matrimonial relations between the parties became strained. On demand of the husband, the father of the complainant gave Rs. 30,000/- at the time of the marriage for purchasing refrigerator, furniture and television etc. However, the husband did not purchase these articles and misappropriated this amount. Thereafter, the husband again put forth a demand for Rs. 50,000/- but the father of the complainant was unable to pay this huge amount and paid only Rs. 5000/- which resulted in further straining their relations. All the accused then started maltreating the complainant by insulting and abusing her. She was not even provided with meals on some occasions, and ultimately, she was turned out of the house by the accused at Phagwara towards the end of May, 1984. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, after recording the statement of the complainant and Surinder Kumar who acted as a mediator in the marriage, besides that of the father of the complainant, summoned the husband and his parents to face trial for the offences under sections 405 and 406. Indian Penal Code, but discharged Mst. Veena and Mst. Anju, sisters of the husband. Being aggrieved against the said order of discharge, the complainant went in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 9th August, 1987 held that prima facie offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is made out against all the accused, including Mst. Veena and Mst. Anju. All the accused, except the husband, have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint as well as orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides pursuing the record. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge against Mst. Veena and Mst. Anju is not sustainable as the revision petition was disposed of without effecting their proper service. The perusal of the judgment reveals that these two petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte in view of the report on the registered covers regarding their non-availability. Admittedly, these two petitioners were not residing in the local jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. They were either residing with their parents at Phagwara or at Majitha. According to section 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the summons are required to be served upon the persons outside the local jurisdiction of the Court such summons shall be sent in duplicate to the Magistrate in the local jurisdiction of which the persons, summoned reside, whereas section 69 only provide service of summons on a witness by post and not upon the accused. The matter does not rest here as the trial of the complaint reveals that no specific allegations regarding entrustment of the articles or maltreatment has been levelled against them. Simply because they were found wearing some ornaments or the complainant, it cannot be said that they have committed any offence under Sections 405 and 406. Indian Penal Code, due to lack of prima facie proof of entrusting the property to them. Similarly there is no specific allegation of entrustment of the articles forming Istri Dhan of the complainant to or against the parents of the husband, except the entrustment of Rs. 5000/- on one occasion to Kishori Lal, petitioner, father of the husband. This High Court has t