Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 283
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jai Singh Sekhon, J.
Rakesh Kumar
Versus
State Of Punjab
C.R. No. 191 of 1990,
Decided On : MARCH 11, 1991
Offences under Sections 406 and 498-A(1-B) of the IPC, in the context of dowry, constitute one series of acts forming the same transaction, and the court where the consequences ensued has jurisdiction to try the offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 220 - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 3, 416 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 406, 498-A - JURISDICTION - CRUELTY - DOWRY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 498-A - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - OFFENCES FORMING PART OF SAME TRANSACTION - COURT WHERE CONSEQUENCES ENSUED HAS JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioners sought the quashing of a complaint and order holding a prima facie case for framing charges for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against them. The complaint alleged that the accused, including the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant, demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty, including physical and mental harassment, for not providing a scooter and color television. The accused challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Ludhiana Court to try the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Ludhiana Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The court found that the major part of the harassment culminating in paying Rs. 5,100.00 to the husband took place at Ludhiana. The court also held that the facts and circumstances resulting in misappropriation of the Stri Dhan (dowry) as well as cruelty would form part of the same transaction being closely interlinked and knitted with each other.
Issues: 1. Whether the Ludhiana Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC? 2. Whether the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A(1-B) of the IPC, in the context of dowry, constitute one series of acts forming the same transaction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 498-A of the IPC and explained that cruelty to the wife by the husband or relations of the husband is an ingredient of the offence. Cruelty includes any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, or harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 2. The court relied on Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and held that where offences constitute one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, they become triable at the place where the consequences ensued. In this case, the consequences of maltreatment ensued at Ludhiana, giving the Ludhiana Court jurisdiction to try the offence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court holding a prima facie case for framing charges against the accused was upheld.
1. The accused-petitioners through this petition filed u/ S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seek the quashment of the complaint FIR, copy Annexure P-1, and the order of the trial Court, copy Annexure P-2, holding that a prima facie case for framing charges for offences u/Ss. 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the offence punishable u/S.498-A of the Indian Penal Code and vagueness of allegations regarding entrustment of money. This petition was admitted only on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that the marriage between Rakesh Kumar accused and Sunita Rani, complainant, admittedly took place at Ludhiana according to Hindu religious rites on 12- 10-1987. About fifteen or twenty days prior to this arranged marriage, Rakesh Kumar husband along with his parents Ram Lal and Kamlesh Rani, accused-petitioners, and one Ravinder Nath Arora went to Ludhiana for finalising the date and other arrangements of marriage. These persons then made a condition precedent to the marriage that Rakesh Kumar Kalia would enter into matrimonial bond with the complainant only if her parents gave fridge, colour television, scooter and cash of Rs. 21,000/ -. It is averred that the parents of the complainant gave all the articles in the dowry except scooter and colour television. The articles mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint were handed over to Rakesh Kumar, Ram Lal and Kamlesh Rani, accused-petitioners. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started maltreating the complainant in order to force her to bring colour television and scooter from her parents. The complainant then apprised her parents of this episode. Accordingly, on 20-10- 1987, on the occasion of marriage of Ashwani Kumar, brother of the complainant, Rs. 5,100/ - were given to her husband Rakesh Kumar accused at Ludhiana. The inlaws, however, did not feel satisfied with this amount and continued maltreating the complainant. On the refusal of the complainant that her parents are unable to provide scooter and colour television, the husband of the complainant started beating the complainant with a leather belt. In the month of April, 1988, when the complainant was serving dinner, her husband Rakesh Kumar under the effect of intoxication and her mother-in-law started beating her and broke her glass bangles. The complainant the raised alarm, upon which the broken pieces of glass bangles were thrusts in the abdomen of the complainant, by telling her tauntingly that let people hear, her shrieks. The complainant, however, continued bearing this, maltreatment like a devoted Indian wife with the hope that better sense would prevail one day. It is further averred that in the month of May, 1988, the above referred accused persons along with Bittu brother of her husband gave her beating. Her mother-in-law also tried to set her on fire in the kitchen by intentionally throwing the stove from the cooking slab. The cloths of the complainant caught fire but she saved herself by wrapping in a blanket. A few days thereafter she came to her parents house at Ludhiana on the pretext of ailment of her mother and apprised, her parents of this episode, but her parents asked her to be tolerant and ultimately her brother left her at Ambala in the house of her in-laws. Even thereafter, in the month of October, 1988, her husband and mother-in-law gagged her mouth while her father-in-law started beating her with a wooden rafter. Ashok Kumar, a relation of the complainant who was residing in that locality at Ambala, was attracted to the house and ultimately he sent this information to the parents of the complainant at Ludhiana. Consequently, the father of the complainant came to Ambala and lodged a report with the police. The police recovered the complainant from the house of her in-laws and recorded her stat
