M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) IN view of the social evil of dowry playing a prominent part in these proceedings, this revision petition is formally admitted and decided simultaneously.
(2.) THE petitioner is the wife. The respondents are the husband and his parents. Marriage between the parties took place at Rajpura in the State of Punjab. Dowry articles were said to be entrusted to the respondents at Rajpura at or about he time of marriage. The dowry articles were taken away to Rohtak where, within the statutory period, they were required to be handed over to the petitioner and where she set up a home with her husband. For reasons with which we are not presently concerned, they fell apart. The return of her dowry was not made. This constrained her to file a complaint against the respondent under sections 4, 4-B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as amended and under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate at Rajpura, after recording preliminary evidence summoned the respondents the offences under sections 4, 4-B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that there was no summoning order under section 406, Indian Penal Code. The respondents took exception to the summoning order and preferred a criminal revision petition before the Court of Session. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, allowed the revision petition upholding their objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Judge took the view that offences under sections 4, 4-B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were triable by a criminal Court at Rohtak and not at Rajpura. This has given rise to present petition at the instance of the wife. As is plain from the order sought to be revised, the learned Judge took aid from a decision of this Court in Buta Singh and other v. Sudarshan Kaur, 1980 Hindu Law Reporter 373, Somewhat in similar circumstances, the complaint was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction for trial of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Some efforts were made to preserve jurisdiction by contending that offence of criminal misappropriation could be tried even at the place where the misappropriated articles were entrusted to the accused. This Court held such an argument to be misplace, for, in that case, the complaint had not been filed under section 406. Indian Penal Code, and even remotely it was contended in the complaint, and the summoning order was not under section 406 I.P.C. It is in that situation and on the peculiar facts of that case that the plea of jurisdiction was upheld. But here, as in plain, we have reference to section 406 in the complaint and necessary facts pleaded therein from which a prima facie case can be spelled out that the accused respondents were entrusted the dowry articles. In the context, the summoning order confining itself to offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and ont under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is, by no means, sacrosanct. The learned Judge, as it appears to me, missed the point. Sufficient data was available on the file even to enlarge the scope of the summoning order. This has to be viewed in the backdrop that the Court can always after the charge and cause amendment thereof in the interest of justice. In any case, no view had been expressed either by the learned Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge hat section 406, Indian Penal Code was not ever attracted. In this view of the matter, the sustaining of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on such a high technically, would mean frustrating the intendment of the legislation. The social evil requires correctives by bengin interpretation an not a restricted, one. Thus I hold accordingly and quash the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, restoring that of the learned Magistrate.
(3.) THIS petition is thus allowed. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the leaned Magistrate on 18th August, 1986. It is, however, made clear that, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner the parents of the husband would be granted exemption from a appearance during the trial since they are said to be aged persons. Some lawyer appointed on their behalf shall put in appearance before the Court, leaving it to the Court to have their presence at an appropriate time. Petition allowed.;