The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of territorial jurisdiction in cases of dowry harassment and cruelty, and the requirement for specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to particular individuals.

G. S. Chahal, J.

1. Gurmukh Singh, his son Ravinder Singh alias Bikki and his daughter Kanwaljit Kaur alias Rampa, petitioners herein, have sought the quashing of the criminal complaint dated 19.10.1987 Annexure PT and the summoning order passed thereon, dated 12.2.1988, Annexure P2, by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Chandigarh, through this criminal miscellaneous under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Gurinder Singh another son of Gurmukh Singh petitioner was married to Smt. Bhupinder Kaur respondent and she had initiated the complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations contained in the complaint are to the effect that at the time of marriage, dowry articles, mentioned in the list, annexed, to the complaint, were entrusted to all the accused persons on their demand and request. This dowry did not safisfy their greed and they started harassing the complainant. Father of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,500.00 to Gurinder Singh and with that cash, he purchased a VCR from Kamal. Thereafter, the accused persons kept on making more demands and she was also subjected to harassment. In April 1987, the complainant was left at Chandigarh by her husband, he having acted on the abetment of the other accused. She delivered a child on 8.7.1987 and her parents met the expenses of delivery. Thereafter, the husband did not take her to the matrimonial home. The complainant then filed a petition under sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage, Act that was pending in the Court at Chandigarh. The husband of the complainant, at the instance and abetment of the other accused, kidnapped the male-child when it was only 18 days old. The child was, however, restored to her on 27.7.1987. A report in this respect, had been made to the Police. During the period from April to July 1987, her husband visited her on three occasions and every time, manhandled, insulted and maltreated her. On 25.8.1987, her husband gave an undertaking at the Police Station that he would not visit the house of complainants father. Yet in September 1987, he summoned the complainant to the Bus Stand in Sector 17 and projected a demand for a car which was a precondition for keeping her as his wife at the matrimonial house. On her showing in ability to meet the demand, he abused her and also her parents. He also slapped her. At one stage, all the accused had forced her to resign her job and she had even, under duress, signed the resignation letter, but it was not accepted. The dowry articles had been retained by all the accused at their house.

3. All the accused persons belong to Jalandhar City and the complainant had her matrimonial home at that place. None of the accused-persons is alleged to have come to Chandigarh to cause her any harassement or cruelty. In this situation, the Court at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant-wife, under sections 323/363/406/420/506/498 -A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. With respect to offence u/s.406, IPC, there is no specific plea of entrustment of dowry articles to any of the persons other than Gurinder Singh. On account of her strained relations, the complainant wife has tried to drag all the close relatives of her husband. In Inderjit Singh and others V/s. Smt. Sushma Rani, delaing with a similar situation, quashed the complaint wherein the parentsin-law had been made accused without specific allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to any of the particular persons. I endorse this view, I accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the summoning order passed thereon. Petition allowed.