Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr vs Mala Gupta

1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the

judgment and order dated 28th July, 2009, passed by the

2

learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 482 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to

as "Cr.P.C.", for quashing of order dated 2nd July, 2009,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, as

also the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, on 5th August, 2008.

2. The respondent herein, Mala Gupta, filed a complaint

against the petitioners, who are her father and mother-in-

law, under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,

hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.". On being satisfied

that a prima facie case to go to trial had been made out,

the learned Magistrate issued process against the

petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a

revision petition against the summoning order, which was

dismissed on 2nd July, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioners

3

filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

of the proceedings arising out of the complaint under

Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C.

3. The main ground taken in the said petition was that the

Court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint since no part of the cause of action for the same

had arisen within its jurisdiction. On a construction of

the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., both the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and the High Court,

dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2008,

and the Crl. Misc. Case No.19996-M of 2009. As indicated

hereinabove, the High Court also dismissed the petitioners'

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order

dated 28th July, 2009.

4 4. The only point for consideration in this case is whether

the learned Magistrate at Patiala had jurisdiction to

entertain the complaint and to issue summons on the basis

thereof.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and the High

Court misconstrued the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C.

in holding that the complaint was maintainable, as no part

of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of

the Courts at Patiala. It was urged that the

respondent/complainant had received back all her articles

and personal effects and nothing remained to be handed over

to the complainant at Patiala so as to give rise to a cause

of action within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Patiala.

Learned counsel urged that the complaint was wholly

motivated and without basis and was liable to be quashed.

5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent,

Mala Gupta, submitted that the complaint itself contains a

categorical statement that the dowry articles were to be

returned at Patiala Court, thus attracting the provisions of

Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that at the

stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate was only required

to see whether there was any material in the complaint to

proceed against the accused and the learned Magistrate had

rightly observed that documents produced on behalf of the

accused would be considered at the time of trial.

7. In the ultimate analysis, what emerges from the

submissions of the parties is that during the trial the

petitioners will have to disprove the complainant's case

that part of the cause of action arose in Patiala where the

dowry articles were to be returned to the complainant. As

6

it stands, the complaint does indicate that a part of the

cause of action arose in Patiala, thus attracting the

provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. The High Court has

quite rightly observed that on a bare perusal of the

complaint, the Patiala Court has jurisdiction to entertain

the complaint. The decisions cited on behalf of the

petitioners are not of much help to the petitioners' case.

In Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and

Others, [(2009) 7 SCC 712], this Court held that when on

investigation it was found that no case of cheating or

criminal breach of trust had been made out against the

accused, the High Court should have exercised its

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the

proceedings. In the said case the issue was whether a prima

facie case had been made out against the accused. The

situation in this case is different, since the complaint

7

itself makes out a prima facie case to go to trial. The

petitioners' case does not fall within any of the

circumstances indicated by this Court in paragraph 102 of

its judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, [(1992)

Supp.1 SCC 335]. The other judgments cited are on the same

lines and do not require our attention separately.

8. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the

judgment of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave

Petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

...............................................................J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

...............................................................J.

(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI

DATED: 07.09.2011