We have heard Sri Janardan Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. . Chaturvedi who is appearing on behalf of caveat. This peti tion has been filed by Manish Jain, Umesh Kumar Jain and Smt. Tara Jain under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief to quash the complaint by Bhojdutt respondent No. 3 (Annexure 1) to the petition as also the notice dated 20-5-1998 (Annexure 2) sent by District Dowry Prohibition Officer Firozabad on the said complaint. Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court that the Dowry Prohibition Officer has no jurisdic tion either to entertain the said complaint or to summon the petitioners. His conten tion is that since the marriage of the par ties has taken place at Patna and since a perusal of the complaint also indicates that demand for dowry which the petitioners do not admit was made at Patna hence the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad has no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners.

2. We have gone through the com plaint as also the other annexures which have been filed along with this petition. In a nutshell it is not disputed that the en gagement of Manjoosha daughter of the complainant Bhojdutt was performed with Manish Jain s/o Sri Umesh Kumar Jain at Firozabad. Thereafter the marriage bc-twsen two was performed at Patna. The complaint says thai at the time of marriage itself the party of bride-groom and other relatives were unhappy with the dowry; hence even before the Vidai ceremony they had expressed their anguish and unhappi-ness on the dowry, It is further mentioned that at the time of Vidai additional de mand was made for a diamond set and a Ccilo car and it was made clear that till these things were not given they would not take Manjoosha with them in Vidai. The complaint further says that under the com pelling circumstances although he knew that he would not be able to arrange a diamond set and a Celio car,. yet to facili tate Vidai of his daughter he agreed to give these items later. Thereafter the. in-laws of Manjoosha started torturing her/this fact was conveyed to the complainant at Firo/,abad by his daughter on telephone and when she visited Firo/abad after her marriage. Ultimately on the first wedding anniversary of Manjoosha complaints son Hemendra, his sons wife Smt. Savita and Anand went to Patna. They were surprised to find Manjoosha seriously ill. It was then that Manjoosha informed her brother etc. about the neglect in her treatment as also about the abortion which was conducted by her in-laws and for which even the bill of Rs. 1121/- was handed over by Manish Jain to Hemendra demanding its money, which : Hemendra paid immediately. On being forced by Manish and his parents, Hemendra brought back Manjoosha to Firozabad in a set of clothes which she was-wearing and at that time also Manish Jain. Umesh Jain and Smt. Tara Jain made it clear that unless a diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, Manjoosha- would have to remain at her fathers place and if she was sent back to Patna then Manjoosha wouid be killed. The complaint further mentions that when the treatment of Manjoosha was got done at Agra by a specialist Lady-Doctor it was found that she was not properly treated and any delay might have caused her death. The com plaint further says that due to such behav iour to his daughter Manjoosha she had become a victim of mental torture and remained always under stress. The complaint further mentions that despite all these episodes the complainant talked to his daughters in-laws on telephone and requested to them to keep his daughter with theni but they categorically staled that unless the diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, the complainants daughter would have to remain at the residence of the complainant. Ultimately the complaint mentions that since all efforts of compro mise failed hence the complainant sent a notice to the in-laws of the daughter. Un der the circumstances a request

Click Here to Read the rest of this document