1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6269 OF 2009

Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. …    Petitioners   

         Vs.

Mala Gupta  …    Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

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