Ambala Court has jurisdiction to try offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC committed in complainant's matrimonial home at Hansi District Hisar, as dowry articles were entrusted to petitioners at Ambala and were to be returned there, complainant subjected to cruelty and harassment in matrimonial home and turned out in three clothes, and mental torture and agony continued in Ambala.

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. The petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR No. 182 dated April 3, 1990, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Ambala City.

2. Petitioner No. 1 was married to complainant respondent No. 3 on May 8, 1989, at Ambala City. Petitioner No. 2 is mother, petitioner No. 3 is sister and petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are brothers of petitioner No. 1.

3. In the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 it is alleged that at the time of marriage various articles were given to her in dowry, which are enumerated in the FIR itself. On May 17, 1989, when the complainant went back to her matrimonial home accused 3 and 4 (petitioners 2 and 3) teased her for bringing less dowry and demanded more articles in dowry. Accused 1, 3 and 4 (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) demanded amount of her salary previous to the marriage as part of dowry. On the death of her uncle she was not allowed to go to her parental home. At that time accused 1 and 3 (petitioners 1 and 2) ill-treated her. Accused 1 and 3 (petitioners 1 and 2) again demanded whole of the salary since her employment. When she declined accused 2, 5 and 6 (petitioners 4, 6 and 5) took the complainant by arms, pushed her into a room and bolted the room. She was not given any food on June 8, 1989. After many requests she was allowed to come out. On that very evening accused 1, 2 and 4 (petitioners 1, 4 and 3) turned her out of the matrimonial home in three clothes. Since then she is residing with her parents at Ambala. Accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 (petitioners 1, 4, 6 and 5) treated her with utmost cruelty. She requested accused-petitioner No. 1 to return her dowry articles but he declined. It is also averred in the petition that the dowry articles were entrusted to accused 1, 3 and 4 (petitioner 1, 2 and 3). On these allegations, this FIR is registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashment of the same on the ground that there is no allegation of entrustment or breach of trust, and, secondly, the Ambala Court has no jurisdiction to try these offences, which were committed in complainants matrimonial home at Hansi District Hisar. In support of this contention, petitioners learned Counsel relied on Ravinder Kumar Taneja and others v. Anjana Rani, 1996(3) RCC 107.

4. Respondents learned counsel, relying on Jiwni and others v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) RCR 710; V.P. Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 261 and Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 290, submitted that the marriage articles were entrusted to the accused persons/petitioners at Ambala at the time of marriage. These dowry articles were taken by them to Hansi in complainants matrimonial home. Thereafter since the dowry articles are not returned to the complainant, Ambala Court has jurisdiction to try these offences under Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. They also contended that since the offence under Section 406 IPC is triable by Ambala Court, even the offence under Section 498-A IPC is also triable by Ambala Court because both these offences were committed during the course of one transaction.

5. In V.P. Singhs case (supra) the marriage was celebrated at Lucknow. The husband and wife lived in Delhi where she was harassed for demand of dowry and was given beatings also. Wife came to Chandimandir to reside with her parents. Husband demanded more dowry articles and gave beatings to her at Chandimandir also. FIR was lodged at Chandigarh. A single Bench of this Court held that it may be possible to show during trial that offence was partly committed where wife was residing.

6. In Sultan Singhs case (surpa) wife left matrimonial home and came to her parental house at Jhajjar. FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was lodged at Jajjar regarding misappropriation of dowry articles. The question was whether Jhajjar Court has territorial jurisdiction to try these offences. A Single Bench of this Court held that jurisdiction is to be seen on the basis of allegations made in FIR. If an