- (1.) By means of present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 768 of 2007 (Case No.1131 of 2007), (Smt. Sweta Kohli Vs. Satish Kohli and others) under sections 406 and 420 IPC P.S., Hazaratganj, District Lucknow, whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. to face trial and also the consequential proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow.
(2.) In this petition, Impugned order and continuance of proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof have been challenged on two counts:- 1.That learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of court at Lucknow. 2.That on the basis of allegations made in the complaint neither offence under Section 420 I.P.C. nor under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out.
(3.) Brief facts for deciding this petition are that a complaint has been filed by opposite party no. 2- Smt. Sweta Kohli against petitioners- Satish Kohli and Smt. Neena Kohli and two others, namely, Amar Nath Kohli and Km. Amisha Kohli with allegations that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 12.12.2002 with Gaurav Kohli according to Hindu rites and rituals in Kamal Palace Hotel, Jalandhar (Punjab). In the marriage sufficient dowry i.e. a Maruti Zen Car,Air condition, ornaments, cloths and other household goods were given by the father of opposite party no. 2, as per list annexed as Annexure no. 1 to the complaint. Earlier to it, on 28.10.2001 engagement ceremony was held in Utsav Hotel Madhuvan, Dehradun (Uttrakhand). In the engagement ceremony the father of opposite party no. 2 gave costly gifts to Gaurav Kohli and his relatives. The ornaments and other belongings of opposite party no. 2 including gifts with ornaments given by in-laws in face showing ceremony were kept by her in-laws, the list of which has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the complaint. It is also in the complaint that articles mentioned in both lists are Stridhan of opposite party no. 2. It is also alleged therein that no cohabitation took place in between opposite party no. 2 and her husband Gaurav Kohli. The reason came to the knowledge after marriage that Gaurva Kohli was suffering from heart disease before marriage and the in-laws concealed this fact with intent to grab the money and other items given in the marriage and engagement ceremony. On 25.08.2004 Gaurav Kohli fell ill. He was admitted in Indraprasth Apolo Hospital, New Delhi but without medical advice and complete treatment, he got discharged by his parents. He was again fell ill and was admitted in Indraprasth Apolo Hospital, New Delhi on 09.06.2006. She paid Rs. 10,000/- for admission of her husband Gaurva Kohli, but he again discharged at the behest of his parents without completing his treatment and without taking medical advice on 18.6.2006, The parents of Gaurav Kohli did not pay requisite expenditure of his treatment. Opposite party no. 2 was serving in a Multi National Company at Noida. The employer of opposite party no. 2 provided insurance cover to opposite party no. 2 and his husband, the premium of which was paid out of her salary. The expenses incurred in the treatment of Gaurava Kohli to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by her from insurance money. Her husband passed away on 21.06.2006 for want of proper treatment. His last rites took place on 24.06.2006. Thereafter petitioners expelled her in wearing cloths. When she demanded her Stridhan in presence of Dr. J. L. Soori, Jai Kumar Soori and her parents, the petitioners refused to return the same. Thereafter, she was compelled to come back Lucknow to reside with her parents. It is also alleged that accused persons Satish Kohli and Amarnath Kohli fraudulently got some life insurance policies of Gaurav Kohli concealing his ailment. After death of Gaurav Kohli, the amount under some life insurance policies have been taken by the petitioners but some of them are still to be paid.;