- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Rohan Singh, respondent No. 2, father-in-law of the petitioner and father of Smt. Sunita Singh, respondent No 3 who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156 (2), Cr. P. C. for the offences punishable under Sections 504 506 and 498-A I. P. C. alleging, in brief, that the petitioner started demand ing further dowry and with that end in view started harassing her-wife and pressorising her to bring more dowry from 'his wife's father. Respondent No. 3 did not accede to his wishes whereupon he started boating her and treating her cruelly. On 27-11-1991 at about 2-00 p. m. the petitioner came with his wife to the house of the respondent No. 2 in district Haridwar and there told his wife to get from her father Rs. 10,000 in dowry The respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to pay such a large amount upon which he left respondent No. 3 at the house of respondent No 2 and went away threatening that in case she was sent to his house she would be done to death. A report was called from the police. According to the respondent No. 2 the police did not submit a correct report and therefore, he filed an objection stating that cognizance be taken under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr. P. C. The trial court treating this protest petition as complaint, recorded statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and then summoned the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 505 and 498-A, I. P C vide order dated 1-1-1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 47/93, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 25-10-1993 (Annexure-5 to the petition ). Aggrieved by these two orders the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the aforesaid two orders and also the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The first point urged is that the courts at Haridwar had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as the petitioner resided at Muzaffarnagar and cause of action, if any, to file the complaint arose at Muzaffaranagar. In the complaint it is specifically stated that the petitioner brought respondent No. 3 to the house of the complainant in district Haridwar and there demanded dowry and threatened respondent No. 3 to kill her in case she come to his house at Muzaffarnagar. From these allegations it is clear that part of the cause of action arose at Haridwar also and as such the courts at Haridwar had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. It was then urged that from the allegations made in the complaint no offence can be said to have been made out. Reliance in this connection has, also been placed upon Annexure-7, the report submitted by the police upon complaint of respondent No. 3. It is stated in the police report that the petitioner was married about 12 years back. They had no issue. Respondent No. 3 wants to take her nephew in adoption about which the petitioner was not agreeable and for that reason the relations between the husband and wife have become uncordial. It is further stated that the petitioner wants to take in adoption his brother's son. In the end it is stated in the report that further investigation in the case directed to be undertaken by the police of P. S. Jakud, district Saharanpur in order to find out the correct position. From this report it is clear that the police of P. S. Kankhal, Haridwar did not come to any finding. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that this repot helps the petitioner it would not make any difference. The report is not final. The Magistrate is still competent to take cognizance of the case on the basis of the protest petition treating it as complaint.
(3.) IN view of the statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and the evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. it cannot be said that the orders of the two courts below suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. Whether the witnesses are speaking the truth is a question to be decided by the trial court. No finding regarding veracity can be recorded in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 was examined as a witness under Section 202, Cr. P. C. She has fully supported the complainant's version of the case. In view of the discussion above the writ petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. The stay order granted on 7-1-1994 (wrongly dated 7-1-1993) is vacated. Petition dismissed. .;