KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.versusMALA GUPTA

                        [2011] 11 S.C.R. 232

                                        '
A              KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
                                   V.
                         MALA GUPTA
         (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6269 of 2009)
                       SEPTEMBER 07, 2011
B
      [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,
                         JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure,           1973: s.181(4) -
C Applicability of - Complaint filed against petitioners-parents- ·
   in-law u/ss.406 and 498-A /PC before Judicial Magistrate at
   Patiala - Issuance of process against petitioners - Revision
   thereagainst dismissed - Application filed u/s. 482 by
  petitioners on the ground that the Court at Patiala had no
o jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since no part of cause
   of action for the same arose within its jurisdiction - High Court
   dismissed s. 482 application - Ori appeal, held: It is during
   the trial that the petitioners would have to disprove the
   complainant's case that part of the cause of action arose in
E Patiala where the dowry articles were to be returned to the
   complainant - The complaint indicated that a part of the
  cause of action arose in Patiala, therefore, provision of
  s.181(4) was attracted - High Court rightly observed that on
   a bare perusal of the complaint. the Patiala Court has
F jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - No reason to interfere
   with the order of the High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406
   and 498A - Jurisdiction.

       The respondent filed a complaint against her
  parents-in-law (the petitioners) under Sections 406 and
G 498-A, IPC before the Judicial Magistrate at Patiala. The
  Magistrate issued process against the petitioners. The
  petitioners filed a revision petition against the
  summoning order which was dismissed. Thereafter, the
  petitioners filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
H                             232
KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. v. MALA GUPTA 233

    ,•

quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that the          A
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. The High Court
dismissed the application filed· under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
The instant special leave petition was filed challenging the     B
order of the High Court.

     Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court

     HELD: During the trial, the petitioners will have to
disprove the complainant's case that part of the cause of        C
action arose in Patiala where the dowry articles were to
be returned to the complainant. The complaint did
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 rightly observed that on a bare perusal           D
of the complaint, the Patiala Court has jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. There is no reason to interfere
with the order of the High Court. [Paras 7, 8] [235-G-H;
236-A-B, E]
                                                                 E
     Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and
Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 712: 2009 (7) SCR 563;. State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR •
259 - distinguished.

                     Case Law Reference:                         F
    2009 (7) SCR 563            distinguished      Para 7
    1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 distinguished          Para 7
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.) No.              G
6269 of 2009.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.7.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. Petition
No. 19996-M of 2009.
                                                                 H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Petitioners.

        Brijender Chahar, K.R. Anand, Jyoti Chahar, Vinay Garg
    (AC) for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
          ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition is
    directed against the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2009,
    passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Section
c   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
    M~gistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, on 5th August, 2008.

D
       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 "l.P.C.". On being satisfied that a
  prima facie case to go to trial had been made out, the learned
E 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 filed the application under Section
  482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the
F complaint under Sections 406 and 498A l.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
G 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
H
KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. v. MALA GUPTA 235
           [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
also dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 482         A
Cr.P.C. by the impugned order dated 28th July, 2009.

     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.
                                                                      8
      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 n9 part of
the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the         C
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     D
the complaint was wholly motivated and without basis and was
liable to be quashed.

     6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent,
Mala Gupta, submitted that the complaint itself contains a
                                                                      E
categorical statement that the dowry articles were to be returned
at Patiala Court, thus attracting the provi,sions 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          F
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 G
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 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 H
    236     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A 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],
B 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
c facie case had been made out against the accused. The
  situation in this case is different, since the complaint 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
D 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
E Petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

    D.G.                       Special Leave Petition dismissed.