New Delhi-18 v. Type-3, Nurses Residential Complex, Siri Niwas Puri, New Delhi-65

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the demand of Rs.1.00 lac allegedly made by the petitioner, for starting business and the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/-, Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -5- by the father of the complainant to him, did not fall within the definition of dowry. He has further submitted that no beatings were ever given to the complainant, by the petitioner, on

2.7.2005. He has further submitted that as per Annexure P-5, the complainant performed her duty from 2.00 PM to 8.00 PM on 2.7.2005. He has further submitted that had she been given beatings on 2.7.2005, the question of attending the duties, by her would not have at all arisen. He has further submitted that even the medical examination was got conducted by the petitioner on 09.07.2005. He has further submitted that had the beatings been given to her on 2.7.2005, she would have certainly got herself medicolegally examined immediately. He has further submitted that the injuries report is, thus, fabricated. He has further submitted that even the criminal Court at Kurukshetra had no jurisdiction to entertain the challan, and frame the charge, as the alleged offences were committed at Delhi. He has further submitted that the order framing charge, the order, vide which the revision petition was dismissed and the subsequent proceedings, if allowed to continue, shall be nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court.

10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, have submitted that the demand, made by the Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -6- petitioner, in respect of the amount for starting his business, was infact in connection with the relationship of marriage and fell within the definition of dowry. They have further submitted that, no doubt, on 2.7.2005, the complainant from

2.00 PM to 8.00 PM, as per Annexure P-5, attended duties in the evening shift, yet the petitioner could give beatings to the complainant after 8.00 PM. They have further submitted that from 3.7.2005 to 6.7.2005, the complainant remained on earned leave, as is evident from Annexure P-5. They have further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that she was not beaten up on 2.7.2005 by the petitioner. They have further submitted that the panchayats were convened at Chibba (Kurukshetra). They have further submitted that the application to Women Cell was given by the complainant at Kurukshetra. The compromise was arrived at, in the Women Cell, at Kurukshetra. They have further submitted that the complainant was not only physically but also mentally tortured, as a result whereof, she had come to her parents house and complained to them at village Chibba, falling within the jurisdiction of Courts at Kurukshetra. They have further submitted that the mental torture and cruelty caused to the complainant, at Delhi, continued at Chhiba also, when she came to her parents house, after being thrown out Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -7- of her bridal home and , as such, the Police could register the case at Kurukshetra and the Courts at Kurukshetra had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. They have further submitted that the orders impugned and the subsequent proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court.

11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The first question that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the demand of amount of Rs.1.00 lac, made by the petitioner, from the complainant, for starting his business, and payment of Rs.50,000/- in pursuance thereof, by the father of the complainant, to him fell within the definition of dowry or not. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under:- “2. Definition of “dowry”- In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:- (a) by one party to a marriage to other party to the marriage; or Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -8- (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dowry or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) applies.”

12.The definition of dowry, extracted above, clearly speaks of any property or valuable security. A sum of Rs.1.00 lac was demanded by the petitioner from the complainant, for starting his business. She came to parent's house and her father alongwith her (complainant) went to the petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The amount was demanded from the complainant, and her parents, by the petitioner, not as a loan, but, in connection with the relationship of marriage. The demand of Rs.1.00 lac, thus, certainly fell within the purview of dowry. In Hem Chand vs State of Haryana 1994 (3) RCR 625 (SC), Hem Chand, appellant, married deceased Saroj Bala, on 24.5.1982. He demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for purchasing a plot, from his in-laws. He again repeated that demand on 20.05.1987. Saroj Bala deceased brought a sum of Rs.15,000/- and paid the same to Hem Chand with a promise that the balance amount would Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -9- be remitted by her father soon. On 16.6.1987, at about

11.15 am, the deceased died of strangulation i.e. to say that she died otherwise than, under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage. Such a demand was, thus, held to be falling within the definition of dowry.The accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,holding that the demand fell within the definition of dowry.The appeal filed by Hem Chand,in the High Court,was dismissed.Special Leave Petition filed by him in the Apex Court was also dismissed.However, the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him, was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.In Koshalya vs. State of Punjab 1994 RCR (P&H) 48, (Division Bench), the demand was made by the husband, from her-in-laws, through his wife, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for opening a shop. Another demand of Rs.50,000/-, was made by him, for purchasing the articles to be exhibited, for sale, in the said shop. When the parents of the bride failed to fulfill such a demand, she was subjected to cruelty, as a result whereof, she died, on account of burn injuries. Such a demand was held to be falling within the definition of dowry. No doubt the Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana 1999 (3) Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -10- RCR (Criminal) 437, in support of his contention, that such a demand, could not fall within the definition of dowry. The ratio of law, laid down in Ramesh Kumar 's case (supra) being contrary to the ratio of law laid down in Hem Chand 's case (supra) by the Apex Court, does not hold the field . Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, to the effect, that such a demand, did not fall within the definition of dowry, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13. Respondent no.2, was given beatings, as is evident from the allegations, made by her in FIR No. 70 dated

14.7.2005. No doubt, as per Annexure P-5, the complainant, attended her duty from 2.00 PM to 8.00 PM. It may be stated here, that even if the wife is subjected to cruelty, by her husband, she, in the normal course, does not make the same public, so as to ensure that the misconduct and cruelty meted out to her, at the hands of her husband, does not become the talk of the town. Even otherwise, beatings could be given to the complainant/respondent, by the petitioner after 8 PM. It was, on account of this reason, that from 3.7.2007 to 6.7.2007 the complainant was on earned leave. The petitioner caused injuries on the person of the complainant and that was why she remained on earned leave from 3.7.2007 to 6.7.2007. Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -11- Annexure P-5, therefore, clearly shows that such an incident happened in which the injuries were allegedly caused on the person of the complainant by the petitioner. When she, ultimately, came to the house of her parents, she got herself medicolegally examined on

09.07.2007. As per the medicolegal report, (Annexure P-6), there were as many as five injuries on the person of the complainant. There was no fun, on the part of the respondent/complainant, to create such injuries, on her person, and then get her medicolegally examined. The injuries were on the eye, face, left side of the neck, left wrist etc. etc.So annexure P-5 does not falsify the allegations, made by the respondent-complainant, that she was given beatings and caused injuries, by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14. So far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the Court at Kurukshetra has already taken cognizance of the case. Charge has already been framed against the accused. The marriage took place at village Chibba, which falls within the jurisdiction of Kurukshetra. Articles of dowry were entrusted to the petitioner, at village Chibba. The respondent was tortured from time to time, in connection with the demand Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -12- of dowry by the petitioner, though at Delhi, but after such torture, she used to come to Chiba at her parents house and narrated the tale of her woes. Even when she was turned out of her bridal house, after giving beatings, by the petitioner, she came to Chiba and got herself medicolegally examined at Kurukshetra. The mental cruelty, which was caused by the petitioner, to the respondent/complainant, continued, throughout, while even she was living in the house of her parents at Chibba, when she was eventually beaten and turned out of her bridal home. The panchayats were also convened at village Chibba. An application to the Women Cell was also given at Kurukshetra. At present, as per the allegations, the respondent/complainant is residing with her parents at Chibba and no effort has been made by the petitioner to rehabilitate her in her bridal home. In Brij Lal v. State of Haryana (1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 319 (P&H) bride was given beating at Hansi, in her in-laws house. Thereafter she came to live with her parents at Ambala. No effort was made by the husband to rehabilitate her. In these circumstances, it was held that Ambala Courts had territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal case. Under these circumstances, the Courts at Kurukshetra had territorial jurisdiction. 14-A. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -13- placed reliance on Y. Abraham Ajith and ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) and Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 762 (SC) in support of his contention that the Courts at Kurukshetra had no jurisdiction, to try the case. In both these cases, the complainant-wife left her bridal home of her own, and came to live with her parents at a different place. Thereafter, there was not even a whisper that she was treated with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. In the factual scenario, which was prevailing, in the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court held that the Courts at the place where the bride came to reside had no jurisdiction to try the case. In the instant case, the bride was twice cruelly treated and turned out of her bridal home, and there was a compromise between the parties at Kurukshetra, in pursuance whereof she went to reside with her husband. Again she was beaten and thrown out of her bridal home, and then she came to her parents house, to live with her two minor children. The mental cruelty caused to the complainant, from time to time, by the petitioner, continued and perpetuated even at Chiba ( Kurukshetra) where she is presently residing with her minor children. She did not leave her bridal home, of her own. According to Section 178 (1) (c) Cr. P. C. where the offence is Crl. M. No. M- 31667 of 2008 -14- continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas and as per Section 178(1)(d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. The present case, falls within the purview of Section 178(1)(c) and (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No help, therefore, can be taken by the Counsel for the petitioner, from the cases relied upon by him. The Courts at Kurukshetra had jurisdiction to try the case. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

15. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

16. For the reasons, recorded above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.

17. The Registry is directed to comply with the order immediately. March 31, 2010 dinesh ( SHAM SUNDER ) JUDGE