SAT PAL, J. - (1.) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of two petitions (Cr. Misc. No. 4840 -M of 1995 and Cr. M.No. 5057 of 95) as in both the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the complaint dated 14th December, 1993, filed by Smt. Meera Luthra and Renu, and the summoning order, dated 22nd November, 1994, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Prem Kumar Luthra (hereinafter referred to as the 'Husband') was married to Smt. Meera Luthra alias Meenakshi (hereinafter referred to as the wife) on 12th October, 1991 at Ludhiana and out of their wedlock one baby daughter, namely Renu (respondent No. 2) was born. The wife filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda under Sections 4, 4B and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also under Sections 498A/120B/406/34, IPC against husband Prem Kumar Luthra, Vasudev Luthra (father of the husband), Smt. Kaushalya Luthra (mother of the husband), Ramesh Chander Luthra (brother of the husband), Yash Pal Luthra (brother of the husband) and Smt. Darshana Manchanda (sister of the husband). It may be pointed out that Yash Pal Luthra, Ramesh Chander Luthra and Smt. Darshana Manchanda are the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 4840 M of 1995 and Vasudev Luthra and Smt. Kaushalya Devi are the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 5057 M of 1995. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the wife, all the petitioners in both the petitions were summoned under Sections 406/498 A/34, IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide his order dated 22nd November, 1994. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners in the above mentioned two petitions.
(3.) NOTICES of both the petitions were issued to the respondents and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Toor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda who passed the summoning order, had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners. He submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, the marriage was solemnized at Ludhiana, the cruelties were alleged to have been committed at Ludhiana articles of dowry were alleged to have been entrusted to the accused at Ludhiana and even the demand of the return of the articles of dowry was alleged to have been made at Ludhiana. He, therefore, contended that no cause of action whatsoever had arisen in this case at Bathinda and as such, the complaint filed by the respondents could not have been entertained by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments : (1) Puran Singh and others v. Surjit Kaur, 1995 (3) All Instant Judgments 211 : (2) Tarsem Singh and others v. Amrit Kaur, 1995 (3) AIJ 272 [1995(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 19 (Pb. & Hry.)]; and (3) Jangir Singh and others v. Harpak Kaur, 1995 (2) AIJ 766.;