JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide which respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been discharged in FIR No. 362 registered under Sections 323, 342, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Thanesar, Kurukshetra, was upheld.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the petitioner-complainant and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 20.11.2011 in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. The petitioner was 1.5 months pregnant when respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused spiked her juice with some medicine that caused termination of the said pregnancy. Moreover, respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused were constantly harassing the petitioner to bring more dowry. Owing to the same, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25.11.2011. On the same day, respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused started demanding for a bigger car as the petitioner had brought an Alto car in dowry. The petitioner was beaten, starved, attempted to strangled and threatened that this treatment will continue till she brings them a bigger car. Respondent No.2 also subjected the petitioner to non-consensual unnatural sex. He further stated that he has illicit relations with one Aman and one Kulvinder Kaur, and that he wants to marry Kulvinder Kaur. Further, respondent No.2 threatened to implicate the petitioner and her family in false cases by exercising his political influence. Ultimately, on 12.08.2012, the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial home. Subsequently, on 02.10.2013, respondent No.2 arrived at the workplace of the petitioner and threatened to kill her. He also called the petitioner on 25.08.2014 and threatened to kill her again. The stridhan of the petitioner was entrusted to the respondents-accused, however, they have declined to return the same to her.

3. Based on the material available, the learned trial Court discharged respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused vide order dated 17.11.2015(Annexure P-1) citing lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate Court, however the revision petition filed by her was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-3).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 came to the workplace of the petitioner i.e. Kapisthal Institute of Medical Sciences and Nursing, Gharasi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and threatened to kill her. In fact, the dowry articles were handed over to the petitioner by respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused, through the police, at Kurukshetra. The allegations levelled against respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused were found to be correct during the investigation as reflected in the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which was presented in the Court on 16.03.2015. As such, the FIR was rightly registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar but, the learned Courts below have erred in discharging respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused for the lack of jurisdiction as the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC are continuing offences. Moreover, at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to make an inquiry into the veracity of the allegations levelled against the accused or look into their defence. Reliance is also placed on Chandralekha and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2013(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 959.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 contends that the learned Courts below did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence, as such they have correctly discharged respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that after the solemnisation of their marriage, th