Harbans Singh Rai, J.:— Partap Singh petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of F.I.R No. 180/87 registered in Police Station, Pehowa, on July 27, 1987, under sections 406 and 498, Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts in brief are that Nirmaljit Kaur was married to Satvinder Singh on November 27, 1985. The marriage took place at village Jhinwarheri, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
3. Partap Singh petitioner is father of Satvinder Singh.
4. Nirmaljit Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal on March 9, 1987, against her husband Satvinder Singh, her father-in-law Partap Singh petitioner, his (petitioner's) wife Gurcharan Kaur, his daughter Tejinder Kaur and his son-in-law Baljit Singh under sections 406 and 498, Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, sent the complaint under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, to Pehowa Police and consequently F.I.R No. 180/87 was registered.
5. Nirmaljit Kaur, in her complaint, the basis of the F.I.R, alleged that her parents had given her a lot of dowry which was entrusted to the accused, and as her in-laws were not behaving properly with Page: 365her, and had turned her out of home, she demanded dowry articles back, but they refused to part with the same and so she had filed the complaint.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Thapar has argued that the Court at Kaithal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it should have been filed at Rajpura. I have considered the argument, but I am not in agreement with the same.
7. The marriage took place at village Jhinwarheri, Tehsil and P.S Penowa, District Kurukshetra, and dowry was given there and it is also mentioned in the complaint that the accused i.e petitioner and his co-accused refused to give the dowry back at Jhinwarheri in the presence of the Panchayat. The narration in the complaint will prima facie show that Courts at Kaithal have jurisdiction.
8. Mr. Thapar has further asserted that the complaint does not disclose any offence against Tejinder Kaur and Baljit Singh and they have only been implicated because Tejinder Kaur is daughter of Partap Singh and Baljit Singh is her husband. At this stage, the contents of the F.I.R are to be taken into consideration and they do disclose commission of an offence and in this situation no interference under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, is called for. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.