Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vivek Garg And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 November, 2010
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-503 of 2010
Date of Decision: November 9, 2010
Vivek Garg and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the complainant.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner No.1- husband and petitioner No.2 father-in-law have sought the quashing of FIR No. 204 dated July 10, 2009 through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., under Sections 313, 323, 406, 498-A IPC. The allegations levelled in the FIR are to the effect that the complainant- respondent No.2 Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [2] was married to petitioner No.1 at Ayodhya Ganj, Dadri. After the marriage, they lived in the matrimonial home at Dadri for few days and thereafter they had gone to honeymoon and after their return, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 had gone to Vaishno Devi. As petitioner No.1 was serving at Mumbai, the complainant and petitioner No.1 on December 19, 2008 had gone to Mumbai. The complainant and petitioner No.1 on December 18, 2008 had gone to Mumbai from Dadri. Huge amount of Rs.18.5 lacs was spent on the marriage and sufficient cash jewellery gold and diamond and silver articles, costly clothes, gifts etc. were handed over to the petitioners. During short stay of complainant from December 15, 2008 to December 18, 2008, complainant was harassed by her husband and father-in-law as they used to tease the complainant on the pretext that the marriage party was not treated properly and they grumbled regarding the inadequacy of dowry. The dowry articles were allegedly handed over to petitioner No.2 at Ambala on November 19, 2008. In March 2009, the father-in-law petitioner No.2 also reached Mumbai and petitioners started saying that the complainant should ask her father to give a sum of Rs.15 lacs for the purchase of plot worth Rs.40-50 lacs as petitioner No.1 was staying in a rented flat paying Rs.1000/- per month. The complainant was being checked up by doctors at Mumbai. On April 2, 2009, the father of respondent No.2 asked petitioner No.1, his son-in-law to send the complainant to Ambala as she was not well but petitioner No.1 showed his inability saying that he had no money to purchase the air tickets. The father of complainant sent air ticket on May 3, 2009 on which petitioner No.1 gave severe beatings to complainant- Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [3] respondent No.2 saying that he would not allow her to go. The said fact was brought to the notice of her father. Father of complainant again sent an air ticket for May 6, 2009. When the complainant told petitioner No.1 that she was going to Ambala as she was having pain in abdomen, she was again given slaps and fist blows on May 5, 2009 as a result of which she stared having pain in her lower abdomen. While she was leaving Mumbai on May 6, 2009 she was told by her husband petitioner No.1 to bring Rs.15 lacs from her father for the flat failing which she need not return to Mumbai. On reaching Ambala, the complainant- respondent No.2 narrated her tale of sorrows to her parents and about pain in her abdomen. She was taken to doctor on May 7, 2009. The local doctor treated the complainant and gave her medicines which subsided paid but on May 8, 2009 the complainant remained under pain throughout, therefore, she was, under the advice of doctor and friends, taken to Delhi. She was attended by Dr.M.C. Chaudhary by admitting her in the nursing home on May 10, 2009. She automatically aborted. The miscarriage was the result of the slaps and beatings given to her. When the petitioners were informed about the miscarriage, they said that it was good for both the families as the featus was female featus. As a result of conduct of the petitioners, complainant suffered a shock and depression. The articles of istri dhan have been retained by the petitioners and they flatly refused to return the same.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the police of Ambala has got no territorial jurisdiction as the act of cruelty, if any, is alleged to have taken place at Mumbai, abortion, if any, was at Delhi. Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [4] Petitioner No.1 had lodged an FIR against respondent No.2 and her parents under Sections 313, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Dadri on July 15, 2009. Police at Dadri did not take proper steps to investigate the FIR, therefore, petitioner No.1 approached Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition for proper investigation. The petition was taken up by Allahabad High Court on December 16, 2009. The High Court required the State to file counter-affidavit indicating the progress in investigation vide order annexure P-7, as such the police authorities at Ambala have got no jurisdiction to entertain the compliant made by respondent No.2 or to register FIR annexure P-3, as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the police authorities at Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the matter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on November 25, 2008 at Dadri in the State of U.P. The petitioners and their relatives never visited Ambala prior to the date of marriage. There was no entrustment of any dowry articles to the petitioners at Ambala. So far as offence under Section 313 IPC is concerned, the allegations of beatings are at Mumbai. Learned counsel further contended that the contents of the FIR exphasia show that even if the contents are admitted and are taken at its face value, no offence under Sections 313, 326, 406, 498-A IPC is disclosed, as the allegations of demand of dowry are vague. The FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is a counter-blast to the legal notice given by petitioner No.1 on May 25, 2009 annexure P-1. The complaint had been submitted by complainant- respondent No.2 to S.P. Ambala, on June 10, 2009 after the Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [5] receipt of said notice. There has been an unexplained delay in filing of the complaint which cast a shadow of doubt on the genuineness and bonafide of respondent No.2. Strong reliance was placed on a certificate given by Dr.Nishi Gupta of Aashirwad Nursing Home at Ambala to the effect that she had given pain killers on May 7, 2009 and advised rest to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 on May 9, 2009 travelled all the way to Delhi and Faridabad and got herself admitted. Dr. Madhurima Gupta had aborted her healthy child on May 10, 2009. The petitioners were never informed about the medical complications. It was claimed by counsel for the petitioners that on May 6, 2009, petitioner No.1 travelled from Mumbai to Ambala Cantt. Brother of respondent No.2 informed that she was gone to Faridabad alongwith her parents for medical checkup. The petitioner travelled to Faridabad to find out that his 22 weeks old child was got aborted by respondent No.2 and her parents.
When notice was issued to the State, it was submitted in the affidavit of DSP HQ, Ambala that charge-sheet has been filed and the case stands committed to Session Court. There are allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, AIR 2004 SC 4286 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1986 Crl.L.J. 2070, Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another, AIR 1999 SC 3596 to contend that if on investigation it appears to Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [6] the officer Incharge of the Police station that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. However, FIR can be registered by the police. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on Anil Kumar Saxena and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, 2006 (1) F.J.C.C. 403, in which the complainant wife was living at Bilaspur. She alleged ill-treatment, demand of dowry and cruelty at Bilaspur by her husband and father-in-law etc. The written complaint was lodged before Women Cell at Bilaspur but thereafter she came to Kawardha and again lodged FIR at Police Station Kawardha regarding cruel treatment of her husband and in-laws. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and framed charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC against her husband and in-laws. The High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha holding that no part of alleged cruel treatment was made at Kawardha and that the Kawardha Court had not got any jurisdiction.
When counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the position that in Y.Abraham Ajith's case (supra) and Ashok Kumar Saxena's case (supra) the offence alleged was under Section 498 A IPC and the provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. had not been considered, learned counsel placed strong reliance on Harjit Singh Ahluwalia's case (supra) wherein the provisions of Section 181 (4) was considered in context to the allegations under Section 406 IPC. It had observed that where a Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [7] dispute relating to dowry items which are given at a place D exists and the marriage between the parties had been solemnized at place D, in that situation FIR for offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be lodged at place 'A' where the parents of girl have shifted. The FIR lodged at place 'A' was liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioners referred to certain observations in Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Apex Court has made an observation that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country and that it is matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and large number of complaints are not even bona fide and are filed with an oblique motive It was also observed that majority of the complaints are filed either on the advice or with the concurrence of the learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession and should not made every complaint under Section 498-A IPC as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant has got her parental house at Ambala and that the dowry articles were entrusted at Ambala and that at present she is residing in Ambala where the dowry articles are to be returned. Reliance was placed on Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [8]
"181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may he inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."
A perusal of the abovesaid section indicates that in case of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, the place of trial would be a place where goods are required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. A Division Bench of this Court in Gaganpreet Kaur Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 394 has observed that according to Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. the dowry articles are required to be returned to the complainant at the place of her residence as such where the wife is residing would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Reliance has been placed in the said judgment on Samarat Kaushik Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 328 and Shiv Dayal Arora Vs. Smt.Renu Arora, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 10 (P&H). Similar is the ratio of the judgment in Kamaljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.) 433. It will not be out of place to refer to the judgment of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kaushal, 2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) 766 wherein it was observed that High Court should not quash the proceedings when allegations are levelled Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [9] that trial was being conducted by a Court having no territorial jurisdiction but High Court should transfer the case to a place having jurisdiction. In that case, the allegations levelled by the bride was that she was subjected to physical torture at Indore when she was on family way. She came back to parents' house at Jabalpur where miscarriage took place. For offence under Section 313 IPC, the Courts at Indore and Jabalpur will have the jurisdiction in the light of provisions of Section 179 Cr.P.C. which provides that when an act is an offence, by reason of anything, which has been done, and of a consequence, which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
I have considered the rival contentions of counsel of both the parties and I am of the view that in view of the judgment of Suresh Kaushal's case (supra) the question of quashing of FIR does not arise. Whether it was a fit case for transfer of the proceedings from Ambala to any other place in the light of provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. was carefully considered by this Court in the light of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gaganpreet Kaur's case (supra) and other judgments referred to above. I am of the opinion that the provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. clothe the police of Ambala to investigate the matter and empower the Courts at Ambala to take the cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 313 IPC, despite the fact that offence under Section 498A IPC i.e. cruelty was committed in the area of U.P. Respondent No.2 was no doubt maltreated at Mumbai but she travelled to Ambala where she was given Crl. Misc. No.M-503 of 2010 [10] medical assistance but on account of specialized treatment required she had to be rushed to different places i.e. at Delhi and Faridabad for medical treatment. The act of maltreatment initiated in Mumbai but respondent No.2 was taken to Ambala for treatment. There is medical evidence available indicating that the offence was committed partly in one local area and consequence of the same ensued in Ambala, Faridabad and Delhi as such the Court at Ambala has got a jurisdiction to try the offence by virtue of provisions of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. and the other offences under Sections 313 and 498A IPC, as the provisions of Section 184 Cr.P.C. permitted the trial of all the offences together at one place.
In view of above discussion, I do not find any ground to quash the FIR against the petitioners on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Court at Ambala.
The petition is, thus dismissed.
November 9, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE