The offences under Sections 406 and 498-A (1-B) of the Indian Penal Code constituted one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction and, therefore, under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the offences became triable at Ropar.

, J.

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition under Sec.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, are that Shashi Kanta, Respondent No.2, mas married to Raghbir Chand at Mohali, District Ropar, on April 10, 1984. For sometime after the marriage, Shashi Kanta and her husband lived with the latters parents at Patiala, Later on they started living separately in a rented house in Rajpura Colony, Patiala. A female child was born to them. Both of them were employed in the Judicial Courts in district Patiala. Some differences appear to have arisen and since March 15, 1987, they have been living separately from each other. According to Shashi Kanta, her father had given dowry mentioned in the list annexed with the application, on the basis on which FIR dated February 12, 1988, Annexure P-4, had been entered. When differences arose, Shashi Kanta claimed the dowry articles to be restored to her and on the demand having been turned down, sho lodged FIR under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mohali, District Ropar, against the husband and several of his relations. The present petition has been filed by husbands elder brother Rajesh, petitioner No.1, his wife Kiran Rani, petitioner No.2, husbands sister Kamlesh, petitioner No.4, Kamleshs husband Bhag Chand, petitioner No.3, and another sister Manisha, petitioner No.5. The case of the petitioners is that no definite allegation had been made against the petitioners that any item of dowry was entrusted to them. They had been married long before the marriage of Shashi Kanta with Raghbir Chand. Both the sisters, Kamlesh and Manisha, petitioners 4 and 5, had been living in their marital homes in Chandigarh, while the elder brother Rajesh alongwith his wife was living at Samana. The petitioners had been involved in the aforesaid criminal case by Shashi Kanta out of spite against Raghbir Chand and to cause undeserved hardship to the petitioners. It was an abuse of the process of Court and therefore, they sought quashing of the FIR in so far as they were concerned.

2. It may be added that Raghbir Chand instituted a petition under Sec.13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife Shashi Kanta on September 25, 1987 (Annexure P-l ). When the case came up for respondents evidence, she made an application dated February 22, 1988, Annexure P-2, that she did not want to contest the petition and she was willing to make a statement that the marriage be dissolved. Ultimately by order Annexure P-3 dated April 6, 1988, marriage between the parties was dissolved by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.

3. It may further be mentioned that after the registration of the case, the police raided the house of the parents of Raghbir Chand and purported to recover certain dowry articles. On an application made by the husband, the articles were directed to be delivered to him on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, undertaking to produce the articles if and when directed to do so by the Court. Against the said order, releasing articles in favour of the husband on superdari, Crl. Revision No.986 of 1988 filed by the wife was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on May 15, 1989.

4. There has been several other rounds of litigation between the said estranged couple. The wife instituted a petition under Sec.125, Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance for the minor daughter. Thereafter Shashi Kanta filed Crl. Misc. No.8936-M of 1988 for transfer of those proceedings from one Court to another. The said misc. petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated September 26, 1989.

5. The husband filed a complaint under Sections 499/500, Indian Penal Code, against Shashi Kanta and her brother, who were summoned and after recording preliminary evidence a charge was framed against them by the learned Addl. CJM, Patiala. Crl. Misc. No.1745-M of 1989 filed against the order framing the charge was dismissed by a learned Single Ju