SANDEEP AGGARWAL Vs. SUDESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARVASHRI Sandeep Aggarwal, Surinder Mohan Aggarwal and Smt. Sneh Aggarwal, petitioners, have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashment of the complaint titled as nSudesh Gupta v. Sandeep Aggarwal and others under Sections 498-A, 406, I.P.C., and the summoning order dated 9.12.1996 passed by the Illaqa Magistrate and all the subsequent proceedings against Sudesh Gupta father of Smt. Madhvi, alleging that the filing of the complaint and the passing of the summoning order amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed.

(2.) SHRI Sudesh Gupta respondent filed complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. against the present petitioners, alleging that in the month of October 1994 he have his daughter Smt. Madhvi in marriage to Shri Sandeep Aggarwal. This marriage was solemnised at Jammu in a dignified manner at Hari Niwas Palace, Jammu according to the status of the family. In the marriage he gave many costly items including gold ornaments, electrical goods, furniture, utensils, costly clothes and so many other articles of daily use. This marriage was attended by the relations and other friends of the family, who also gave many costly items in the shape of presents. Sandeep Aggarwal is the husband of Smt. Madhvi, Surinder Mohan Aggarwal and Smt. Sneh Aggarwal are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of Smt. Madhvi. The complainant alleged that in spite of the fact that the complainant spent a lot of money on the marriage, which was arranged in a graceful manner, the present petitioners and other persons named in the complaint, were not satisfied with the dowry items, as a result of which the petitioners started misbehaving and ill-traeating Smt. Madhvi on the pretext that she had brought inadequate dowry. Immediately after the marriage the petitioners made a demand for a Maruti car and sent Smt. Madhvi to Batala in November 1994 with the direction that the latter should persuade her father to give a Maruti car to the petitioners. Since the complainant had already spent enough amount on the marriage, he showed his helplessness. However, in order to rehabilitate his daughter Smt. Madhvi in a respectable manner in the matrimonial home, the complainant gave Rs. 75,000/- at Batala to the parents of Sandeep Aggarwal. This amount was paid to the parents of Sandeep Aggarwal in the presence of Shri Vinod Aggarwal and a few others. The complainant further states that at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage of his daughter, he gave dowry to Surinder Mohan Aggarwal, Sneh Aggarwal and Sandeep Aggarwal, petitioners, Since in the year 1994, the terrorism was not completely wiped out, especially from Jammu area, therefore the complainant handed over all the articles including furniture, costly clothes, electrical goods to Surinder Mohan Aggarwal on the next day of the marriage. For two months the petitioners remained silent and, thereafter again Smt. Madhvi was sent back to fetch more money for the purchase of a Maruti Car. The complainant in the company of Vinod Aggarwal, Surinder Aggarwal and various others went to Jammu along with Smt. Madhvi and made a request to Sandeep Aggarwal and Surinder Mohan Aggarwal and other accused to keep Smt. Madhvi in the matrimonial home. The complainant also gave assurance to the petitioners that he would do something for the purchase of Maruti Car when his financial condition so permitted, and as at that time his financial position was tight, he could not send any money to them. In September 1995 Smt. Renu Jindal and her husband Sushil Kumar Jindal came to the residence of the complainant and forced him to arrange for the car. However, the complainant flatly refused. On 5.9.1995 Smt. Madhvi came to Batala. At that time she was alone and was at the advanced stage of pregnancy. She told her father that after his refusal, all the accused gave her severe beatings and dragged her out from the matrimonial home. She was in acute depression because of the inhuman behaviour meted out to her. As Smt. Madhvi was quick with the child, the complainant got her admitted as an indoor patient in the Manik Nursing Home at Batala in order to facilitate the delivery. She gave birth to a female child. Neither the husband of Smt. Madhvi nor any of the accused came to Batala in order to see the welfare of Smt. Madhvi and her new born child. The complainant had to bear all the expenses. The complainant and his daughter Smt. Madhvi waited till June 1996. Nobody turned up to take Smt. Madhvi during this period. The complainant tried his level best for a peaceful settlement between his daughter and the accused, but he could not succeed. In the first week of July 1996, Smt. Madhvi wanted to take some articles from her in-laws, which she needed for her personal use including, clothes, utensils, furniture etc. The complaint went to Jammu along with Kashmiri Lal Aggarwal and Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, and made a request to Surinder Mohan Aggarwal, Sandeep Aggarwal and Smt. Sneh Aggarwal and others, but they refused to hand over the articles, which were lying with them as a trust for the exclusive use of Smt. Madhvi. It is further alleged by the complainant that all the accused harassed and tortured his daughter Smt. Madhvi and gave repeated beatings with a view to force her or to force the complainant to meet their demand of Maruti car, which could not be fulfilled. Further it is alleged by the complainant Shri Sudesh Gupta that accused Nos. 1 to 5 have misappropriated the articles of dowry which were lying with them as a trust and refused to hand over the same to Smt. Madhvi, and thus, they committed offences under Section 406 read with Section 498A, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., challenge has been given to the complaint and the summoning order on the grounds that the alleged act of cruelty had been committed at Jammu. The marriage was solemnised in Jammu. The alleged articles were handed over to the husband and his parents in Jammu, and, therefore, the Criminal Court of Batala had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to pass the summoning order.