Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Krishan Lal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17444 of 1996,
Decided On : MARCH 21, 1997
JURISDICTION - SECTION 177 CRPC - SECTION 498A, 406, 506 IPC - The court held that the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat have no jurisdiction to entertain the FIR against petitioners 2 and 3 and the offence under Section 406 IPC as against all the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an FIR registered against them under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the petitioners harassed and demanded dowry from the complainant, the wife of the first petitioner. The petitioners contended that the police at Panipat district had no jurisdiction to register the FIR as the alleged cruelty took place in their village in Sonepat district.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat had jurisdiction to try the offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC against the first petitioner as the allegations of cruelty and threatening were committed within their jurisdiction. However, the court held that the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat had no jurisdiction to try the offences under Section 498A IPC and 506 IPC against petitioners 2 and 3 as the alleged acts of cruelty were committed in their village in Sonepat district. The court also held that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against any of the petitioners as there were no specific allegations regarding the entrustment of any item of dowry or the demand for return of the same or the refusal by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat had jurisdiction to entertain the FIR against petitioners 2 and 3? 2. Whether the offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat had no jurisdiction to entertain the FIR against petitioners 2 and 3 as the alleged acts of cruelty were committed in their village in Sonepat district. The court relied on the fact that there were no specific allegations that petitioners 2 and 3 committed any acts of cruelty within the jurisdiction of the police at Samalkha or the Court at Panipat. 2. The court held that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against any of the petitioners as there were no specific allegations regarding the entrustment of any item of dowry or the demand for return of the same or the refusal by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in so far as petitioners 2 and 3 were concerned, and the FIR impugned in this petition and the consequential proceedings as against them were quashed. However, the petition was dismissed with regard to the offences under Section 498A and 506 IPC in so far as the first petitioner was concerned.
K. S. Kumaran and J JJ.
1. Petitioners (1) Krishan Lal son of Preet Singh. (2) Lachhmi wife of Preet Singh and (3) Preet Singh have filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No.175 of 1996 dated 6- 7 -1996 under Sections 498.406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Samalkha district Panipat and the consequential proceedings.
2. The basis of the F. I. R. is the statement of Smt. Kamlesh wife of first petitioner-Krishan Lal The material allegations found in the F. I. R. (Annexure P-I) are as follows: 3 The complainant Kamlesh was married on 10-12-1991 with the first petitioner-Krishan Lal a resident of village Gangesar in district Sonepat her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given by her father and they started to harass the complainant a few days after her marriage. Her husband Krishan Lal father-in-law Preet Singh and mother-in-law Lachhmi started harassing/beating her demanding fridge, motorcycle and golden ring etc. on her writing to her father abut all this in June.1993, her father came to Gangesar and made the petitioners understand. Mter sometime they again started repeating the same. The petitioner gave birth to a daughter on 25-12-1993 at Samalkha. Four-five months later petitioner-Krishan Lal came and took her to village Gangesar. But after sometime the petitioners herein beat her demanding dowry. They said that either dowry articles demanded by them should be brought or they would kill her. On 3-9-1995 her husband (first petitioner) left her at Samalkha saying that if she was to come to Gangesar, she would have to come with dowry. On 9-6-1996 the complainants husband and his uncle came and took her to Gangesar stating that nothing would happen in future but just after reaching Gangesar they started beating her and kept the complainant and her daughter without food demanding dowry. On 10-6- 1996 the complainants husband again left her at Samalkha and said that if she came without dowry then they would kill her.
3. The petitioners urge that all of them are residents of village Gangesar in district Sonepat, that the complainant cohabited with the first petitioner in the said village, that the alleged cruelty also took place in the said village and. therefore the police at Panipat district have no jurisdiction to register the FIR. According to the petitioners, the petitioners 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the complainant or her dowry and that they are living separately. The petitioners urged that the complainant could not get along with her husband and therefore her husband, the first peitioner has filed a petition for divorce against her, which is pending before the additional District Judge, Sonepat. According to the petitioners the said Court tried to settle the matter between them but the complainant declined to settle the matter. According to the petitioners, the present FIR is only a counter-blast to the petition for the divorce filed by the first petitioner. The petitioners claim that they never met the complainant in her village-Attaami therefore there is no question of causing any cruelty to her in the said village. The petitioners also urge that no specific instance of cruelty with date has been given in the complaint. The petitioners also further urge that no specific instance of any demand for dowry, or entrustment or demanding back the dowry articles by the complainant or the refusal to do so by the petitioners has been made in the complaint. Therefore the petitioners contend that the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 I. P. C. have not been made out.
4. The Station House Officer of Police Station Samalkha has filed reply on behalf of the only respondent-State and has urged as follows:
5. The charge-sheet has already been sent to the Court and the case was fixed on 4-2-1997 for appearance of the accused. The dowry articles were handed over in village Atta and have to be returned at the said place. T
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
