KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. versus MALA GUPTA

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 07-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 232 
' 
KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. 
V. 
MALA GUPTA 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6269 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 
[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] 
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: 
2009 (7) SCR 563 
distinguished 
Para 7 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 distinguished 
Para 7 
E 
F 
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. 
B 
Brijender Chahar, K.R. Anand, Jyoti Chahar, Vinay Garg 
(AC) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 agains
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.