V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. III dated 16.4.1993 under Sections 498 A1/506/34, I.P.C. P.S. City Dadri and order dated 4.10.1993 directing the framing of charges.
(2.) F .I.R. No. 111 dated 16.4.1993 was got registered on the basis of written application submitted by Nathi Lal son of Pat Ram, resident of Charkhi Dadri, to the S.H.O. P.S. City Dadri. In his compliant, Nathi Lal submitted that he married his daughter, Anita with Anil Kumar son of Rishi Kumar Moudgil. At the time of marriage, he gave sufficient dowry, i.e. cash, gifts, watch, suit, sofa-set, Saris, Pillias, Fridge, T.V., V.C.R., 51 utensils, double-bed, Dunlop Pillows, Steel almirah, dressing-table, three golden rings, one Jhumki, two bangles and locket etc. In his complaint, he further submitted that husband of his daughter is employed in Railways at Bombay and whenever he used to visit Rajkot from Bombay, the mother-in-law, Shakuntla Devi and Rishi Kumar have been instigating him, thereby harassing his daughter, Anita and asking her to bring more dowry, otherwise they would desert her and remarry. On showing inability to do so, they used to beat and harass his daughter, regarding which his daughter used to write in the letters/telegrams from her in-laws house to her brother, Suresh Kumar who lives in Delhi. It has further been stated in the complaint that "now after giving her beatings, she has been left at our house and was told to bring dowry and cash otherwise she should not come." Quashing of the First Information Report has been sought on the ground that the same does not disclose commission of any offence under the jurisdiction of P.S. City Dadri, but the local police under extraneous pressure, registered the case and after recording the statements of few witnesses, put up the challan in Court, whereafter the Magistrate without application of mind, passed a cryptic order dated 4.10.1993, for framing of charge. Quashing has also been sought on the ground that in the First Information Report, no date and time of the alleged harassment has been mentioned, but vague allegations of alleged harassment have been levelled. It has further been stated that petitioners are residing in Gujarat and, therefore, Court at Charkhi Dadri has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case for offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. In support of this argument, counsel cited judgment in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) RCR 278, wherein criminal complaint filed by the wife in Patiala Court was quashed since the major part of maltreatment, as alleged in the complaint, took place at Varanasi. Counsel also cited judgment in Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana etc., 1994(1) RCR 288, wherein it was held that since the wife was subjected to cruelty by the accused, i.e. her husband and his relations, at Ganganagar, the Court at Jind, where complaint was filed, had no jurisdiction to try it. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on carefully going through the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition. In the complaint, it has specifically been alleged that at the time of marriage, all articles of dowry were entrusted to the husband and parents-in-law. The husband and in-laws of Anita started maltreating her on account of her having brought insufficient dowry, besides being given beatings and threats that she would be deserted. In view of this harassment, her father gave Rs. 1100/- and a sewing machine, but again she was given beating and left at her parents' house by asking her to bring more dowry and cash. The allegations on different occasions regarding maltreatment are specific and prima facie disclose the commission of offence by the petitioners. Under Section 498-A, I.P.C., the cruelty to the wife by husband or relations of the husband is the ingredient of the offence, Cruelty has been explained in the Explanation attached thereto as under "Section 498-A. 'Explanation : For the purposes of this Section, "cruelty" means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." The above-referred provision leaves no manner of doubt that physical or mental harassment to wife by her husband or parents-in-law would be well covered under the provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. As noticed, one of the allegations in the complaint is that the wife was left at the house of her parents after she was given beatings. She was also told to bring dowry and cash. Harassment to her seems to be a continuing one. It started when demand for dowry and harassment was made outside Charkhi Dadri and has continued when she was left at Charkhi Dadri in order to get dowry and, therefore, it may be possible to show during trial that the offence was partly committed and continues to be committed at the place where she has been left, i.e. Charkhi Dadri. So, it seems that the Court at Charkhi Dadri has the jurisdiction to try the offence of cruelty. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case and, are of no help to him. Consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.;