J.S.SEKHON,J - (1.) THROUGH this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code) the accused petitioners seek the quashment of FIR No. 252 dated 5-8-1990 of P.S. City Jind registered against them for offences under sections 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as also the entire investigation as well as report under section 173 of the Code, mainly on the ground that the allegations therein are vague regarding the entrustment of the property as well as for the alleged maltreatment of Smt. Manjit Kuar complainant. It is also averred that Gurmit Singh husband of Manjit Kuar had written letter Annexure P. 2 showing his willingness to part with her stridhan and that she could take away the same from his house any time she likes and that the complainant had taken all the articles in pursuance of that offer during the investigation of the case.
(2.) IN the return, the complainant had opposed this application, contending that the allegations therein are specific and not vague. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides-perusing the record. The perusal of FIR Annexure P. 1. reveals that the allegations regarding the entrustment of the property on the occasion of the marriage in October 1987 to Attar Singh, father-in-law, Gurmit Singh, husband and Ranjit Singh, brother-in-law of Manjit Kaur complainant are specific. It is not a case of that type where it was averred that the stridhan was entrusted to all the accused petitioners as in the case of Dhan Devi v. Deepak and others, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 : 1989(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 483. The matter does not rest here as the allegations regarding mattreatment on 31-7-1989 to the effect that accused Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. Gurmit Singh husband and Ranjit Singh brother-in-law had given her beating at Delhi at the instigation of her parents-in-laws and thereafter the husband and brother-in-law had taken her in Maruti van and left her near Jind By pass, are specific. Thus, there appears to be no vagueness in these allegations. The incident of giving beating at Delhi on 31-7-1984 and leaving the complainant at Jind on the next day are part of the sane transaction. The complainant-respondent is admittedly living with her parents at Jind and the property was required to be returned to her at the place of her residence. Thus, under these circumstances it cannot be said that the court at Jind had no territorial jurisdiction to try the above referred offences. The trial court shall look into the aspect of the matter whether ex facie charge for offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is made out against Basant Kaur, mother-in-law as admittedly she had not accompanied the marriage party and was not entrusted with any property forming stridhan of Manjit Kaur.
(3.) . Except for the above-referred observations regarding Basant Kaur petitioner, there is no merit in this petition. It is ordered to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.;