Karnataka High Court
Neeraj Kumar Chadha vs State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.17007 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA
S/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O J-102,
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS,
JALAHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560057.
2. SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA
S/O LATE JATTU MAL CHADHA,
AGE: 80 YEARS, R/O J-102,
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS,
JALAHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560057.
3. VINAY MALHOTRA
W/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA,
Digitally signed AGE: 73 YEARS, R/O J-102,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS,
UDAGI JALAHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI,
Location: High BANGALORE-560057.
Court Of
Karnataka
4. RAJEEV CHADHA
S/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O J-102,
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS,
JALAHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560057
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA, (PARTY-IN-PERSON))
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AT THE INSTANCE OF POLICE
IN CHARGE OF BAGALAGUNTE
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560073
KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO)
CITY POLICE STATION, PANIPAT
HARYANA-132103
REPRESENTING STATE OF HARYANA
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DTD 21.08.2023)
3. DEEPIKA NANDWANI
D/O RAMAKANT NANDWANI,
R/O 164/A, MAHAJAN STREET,
INSAR CHOWK, PANIPAT, HARYANA - 132103
(AMENDED VIDE ORDER DTD 29.09.2021)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ABHISHEK MARLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILLED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO I) APPLICANT/PETITIONER NO.I BE
ALLOWED TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF ALL FOUR APPLICANTS II)
QUASH THE CHALLAN/CHARGESHEET PRESENTED ON 15.04.2021
AND OTHER PENDING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT OF CJM,
PANIPAT IN CNR NO. HRPP 03-007212-2021 AND CASE NO.
CHI/0001163/2021, UNDER SECTIONS 406, 498-A, 354-C AND 34
IPC ARISING OUT OF FIR NO.0033/2021 REGISTERED BY THE
HARYANA POLICE OF CITY POLICE STATION, PANIPAT AS ALSO
QUASH THE SAID FIR NO.0033/2021 AT ANNEXURE-B (AMENDED
VIDE ORDER DTD 21.08.2023) III) THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR NO.0050/2021 REGISTERED BY
KARNATAKA POLICE OF BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA AT ANNEXURE-A IV) THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO RESTRAIN KARNATAKA AND HARYANA POLICE FROM
ANY COERCIVE ACTION AND ANY FURTHER FALSE FIRS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR FURTHER
HEARING ON 26.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING..
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 for quashing
the charge-sheet filed by the Panipat Police arising out of
FIR No.33/2021, registered by the Haryana City Police
Station Panipat, Haryana State now pending on the file of
CJM Panipat for having charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 354C and 34 of IPC
and also to quash the FIR in Crime No.50/2021 registered
by Bagalagunte police, Bengaluru, for the offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 354 read with Section
149 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of petitioner No.1/party-
in-person - Neeraj Kumar Chadha and learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
3. The case of the petitioner is that on the
complaint filed by the respondent No.3 before the Panipat
police in Crime No.33/2021, wherein she has alleged that
she came in contact with petitioner No.1 in 2016 and bio-
data was obtained as he was 33 years and she was 29
years and developed their friendship and attachment each
other they met in Delhi in 2017. Later in the month of
April 2018, the petitioner/accused No.1 proposed for
marriage and then the proposal was accepted. She came
to Bengaluru and met the accused persons on 25.11.2018
and agreed for marriage. Later the marriage date was
fixed on 09.07.2019 and they booked the Redwood
resorts, Morni Hills, Panchkula. The accused No.1
demanded Rs.1.00 lakh cash and Rs.1.5 lakhs for cloths
for his family members. She herself purchased cloths for
Rs.2.5 lakhs and golden ornaments for Rs.2.25 lakhs were
given to the accused family. The accused purchased
Mangal Sutra and ring, as per the customs. Her parents
gave gold ornaments for worth of Rs.7.00 lakhs. The
marriage was performed on 09.07.2019 at Redwood
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
Resort, Morni Hills, Panchkula. The complainant has spent
Rs.5.00 lakhs for the purpose of marriage. After the
marriage, she came to Bengaluru to the matrimonial
home. But the mother-in-law did not allow them to spare
together in the first night, therefore the consummation
was not possible. It is told by the accused No.1 that it will
be performed on 21.07.2019. Then they left for Bali
Indonesia and there they stayed for 07 days. But the
accused No.1 told that consummation will be after
Depawali Festival. It is further alleged that mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and father-in-law were treated her as made
servant. She should get up at 05.00 a.m. and prepare
breakfast and lunch for them. She has to attend her duty
at 08.30 a.m. and come back at 08.00 p.m. again she
should serve the food to them. She was treated like a
machine. They asked to wash the cloths by hands.
4. It is further alleged that she asked the accused
No.1 about consummation of marriage, but he has
narrated one or the other excuses and he was not able do
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
anything. Hence, she requested him to visit the specialist.
Accordingly, both of them went to the specialist and they
prescribed the medicines. It is further alleged that in the
month of December-2019, she took up Mangal Sutra as
usual in routine, before going for bath and kept it on the
Table. When she came back, the said articles were not
found. When she asked the accused No.1, he told that it
was in the mother-in-law's custody. When she demanded
the same, they will not give back. Then she went to do her
job. After the medical check up, the accused persons
torturing her stating that she cannot do anything. Then
accused No.1's parents and brother torturing her. They
started demanding money for the expenses of food and
rent for staying at home. She was living there, as a paying
guest.
5. It is further alleged that on 25.03.2020 the
mother-in-law abused her. On 18.05.2020 the mother-in-
law abused her, but the accused No.1 just listener and her
mother-in-law told to accused No.1 go for divorce and she
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
should go out of the house. On 04.06.2020 brothers -
Neeraj Chadha and Raju Chadha, started to create new
scenes and shouted on her to get out from the house and
slapped her. He used to abusive words and demanded
money stating that she should pay the money for food and
staying the house. The accused No.1 kept quite becomes
mere listener. After this incident, the brother of the
accused No.1 showed interest by staring at her lustfully all
the time. He always lived in the house in the underwear
without covering his legs. He used to follow her when she
used to kitchen and even he used to stand outside the
washroom. When she objected, he has told that his
brother (accused No.1) was not capable and she should
give all the enjoyment in his company. The said message
was given to the accused No.1 in front of the parents-in-
law. Her father-in-law told that he is helpless and do not
say anything to Raju Chadha (accused No.4) and enjoy
with comfort.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
6. She further alleges that on 05.07.2020 accused
No.1 asked to pay Rs.1 lakh for purchase of scooter. When
she refused, he started torturing her and asked to pay in
demand from her parents. Again on 25.07.2020, the
accused No.1 along with the family members demanded
Rs.1 lakh for food expenses for one year and again on
30.07.2020 accused No.1 shouted and demanded Rs.1
lakh as per the calculation of parents-in-law. At that time,
she demanded her ornaments including Mangal Sutra and
ring, for that they stated that the same is adjacent with
the expenses incurred till date and refused to return. The
accused No.1 along with his family members started
pressurizing the complainant to have accommodation in
the house on bank lease and she entitled to pay
Rs.14,400/- as house rent, that will cover all the
expenses, which have been incurred for sharing
accommodation and food etc., otherwise she has to face
the consequences. Hence, she was not allowed to close
the bedroom inside as the accused No.4 used to enter her
bedroom and her mother in law use to spy upon her in the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
bedroom, nothing was private in her matrimonial life.
Whenever she used to objection to the lifestyle of accused
No.4, roaming around the house with underwear, her
husband used to tell that it is his lifestyle he cannot be
amended. The complainant has been mentally tortured,
her parent in law and brother in law. The accused No.4
never stopped his ill behavior stepping into the bedroom
with underwear. The accused No.4 continuously told her
to enjoy with him. He was sexually harassed her. She was
also harass to pay the bank account to bring from the
parents. They also harassed her. The accused No.1
cheated by concealing his age, health and in-capabilities
before marriage. Apart from this accused, Vinay Malhotra
and Sudeshkumar were tortured by demanding expenses
asking to bring from parental house. Hence, he prayed for
taking action against all the accused persons.
7. Upon receipt of the complaint, the City police
Panipath registered the FIR and took up investigation.
During the pendency of the petition, the police have filed
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
the charge-sheet before the Panipat Court. Hence, the
petition got amended for quashing the charge-sheet.
8. During the pendency of the present writ
petition, the Panipat Police said to be came to Bengaluru
for arresting the petitioner with the help of the Bagalgunte
Police, and the Bagalgunte Police were came to the house
of the petitioners and they said to be apprehended the
petitioner, taken him to the police station. At that time,
the petitioner alleged to be prevented the police from
discharging their duties for arresting the petitioner.
Therefore, a FIR registered against the petitioner, his
brother and others in Crime No.50/2021 for the offences
punishable under Sections 149, 353 and 354 of IPC, which
is also under challenge.
9. It is alleged by the PSI is that on 09.02.2021,
when he was in police station the ASI Vinod Kumar from
Panipat District Haryana State came along with lady
constable one Suman and shown the case registered
against the petitioner in Crime No.33/2021 and requested
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
for cooperation for arresting the accused. Hence, at the
direction of the police inspector himself along with head
constable No.7890, Head constable No.969 went to the
house of the accused for executing the warrant. They went
to the house at Vaishnavi Raptami Apartment around
10.30 p.m. They tried to show the warrant and take the
accused No.1 to custody. At that time Raju Chadha, Vinod
Malhotra, were pulled and torn the uniform of the ASI
Vinod Kumar and they assaulted the lady constable by
hands. The security guard also supported them. The said
Raju Chadha and others disturbed the ASI Vinod Kumar
while performing the duty. Then police arrested all the
persons and brought to the police station and one Vinod
Malhotra escaped. Based upon the complaint the FIR has
been registered by the Bagalgunte Police, which is also
challenged by the petitioners for quashing the FIR, in the
present writ petition.
10. The petitioner have contended in the petition
that the Karnataka police have registered a complaint in
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
the matter, invaded the house of the petitioners on the
basis of same, facilitated the escape of Deepika Nandwani
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent
No.3') with all gold, jewelry, cash, silver articles, costly
sarees, investigated the complaint and respondent No.3
has given a written statement that she is having no
dispute with the petitioners and she is leaving on her own
accord, all these process carried out by the Karnataka
Police has to be reckoned as FIR by Karnataka Police and
there cannot be a second FIR in this matter as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan
Goswami vs. Union Of India, reported in (2020) 14
SCC 51. This Court shall take note of the fact that this
mandatory requirement under law to prepare a
panchanama while seizing or removing articles of value
from premises. However, no such requirement was fulfilled
and cash and jewelry belonging to the petitioners and kept
in the house were simply removed and misappropriated.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
11. If such action of raiding the house of the
petitioners by Karnataka Police is not pursuant to a FIR
and then invasion is nothing less than unauthorized house
trespass and an armed robbery in which all police officers
have participated led by Karnataka Police otherwise the
police could have entrusted the matter to some protection
officer or lady constable.
12. It is further alleged that the Police have
registered FIR on 08.08.2020 and since two FIRs cannot
be registered, Haryana Police have no authority to register
the FIR in the matter, where no cause of action has arisen
in its jurisdiction that too on 16.01.2020 after five and half
months of Karnataka Police registering of complaint, raid
and consequently fleeing away by respondent No.3 from
the house of the petitioners.
13. That the FIR registered by the Haryana police is
vitiates by laches, while Bengaluru police have registered
a complaint on 08.08.2020 and the petition for annulment
of marriage has been filed on 17.08.2020. The
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
complainant made all the fabrications, concoctions to
create evidence for supporting her case. Hence, it is bad in
law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singa vs.
State of Haryana.
14. It is further contended that the enquiry and trial
in criminal cases ought to be conducted at the place where
the cause of action has arisen. In view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Nirkhi
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in respect of Section 177 of
Cr.P.C. It cannot be expected that Haryana Police to act
impartially as their entire trip of travel to Bengaluru has
been funded and sponsored by respondent No.3.
15. It is further contended that petitioners will put
to unbearable economic expense beyond their means,
unfathomable trouble in traveling 2500 kms for attending
the trial besides taking leave from their official duties.
Being servant of the State, risk to their lives and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
manipulations arm twisting at the hands of Haryana Police
and the respondent No.3.
16. The petitioners further contended that the
ambit and scope of subsequent FIR, which is itself bad in
law cannot be beyond the initial complaint made to
Bagalgunte Police Station and annulment petition filed in
Family Court, Panchkula. No offences decipherable from
the said complaint and annulment petition and all
allegations made against the petitioners in FIR has been
illegally lodged after five and half month are fabricated
and concocted, not even a single allegation made in the
FIR can be found either in complaint to Karnataka Police or
Annulment Petition.
17. It is further contended that the petitioner No.2
who is senior citizen nearly 80 years with diminishing
hearing and feeble health also included in the FIR there
was no mention in the complaint filed before the
Bagalgunte Police on 08.08.2020.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
18. The FIR registered in Haryana Police incorrectly
mentioned the year of birth of the petitioners as 1988 and
age of the petitioner No.1 as 42 in the annulment petition.
It can be easily understood the FIR filed after five months
the petitioners mentioned the year of birth of the first
petitioner's mother as 1976 in the FIR instead 1948.
19. It is further contended by the petitioners that
the respondent No.3 alleged in the FIR in Haryana Police
that petitioner No.1 has provided wrong date of birth, the
whatsapp chat dated 19.08.2018 establishes beyond
reasonable doubt. The petitioner No.1 has provided his
Aadhar Card in 2018 one year prior to the marriage.
20. At the time of filing the petition for annulment
of marriage, the respondent No.3 made limited to mere
allegations of demand of scooter, air conditioner, while
after six months at the time of filing of malicious FIR the
falsehood had swelled and astronomically escalated to
multiple demands of Jewelery, cash and what not as
mentioned the FIR, none of such demands were made
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
ever in the FIR is bundle of lies to bring down the
petitioner on their knees to beg for mercy from respondent
No3 and her paramour, Mr.PPS Sodhi.
21. The respondent No.3 allegation regarding
demand of scooter and AC has been included for the sake
of inclusion as nobody will demand AC in cold conditions of
Bengaluru, more particularly, keeping in view the rapid
spread of COVID. It is the respondent No.3, who was
insisting the petitioner No.1 to purchase scooter from one
of the clients of her J.C. Road Branch, Mr.Gurmeet Nagpal,
who runs agency of YAMAHA two-wheelers. The whatsapp
chat corroborates this fact. Further after marriage also no
gift was accepted by the petitioners as all returned by Air
the same day at the airport from the subjected to body
frisking and full baggage check; as such bringing excess
cash or jewellery is out of question.
22. The Court shall take note of the fact the
respondent No.3 Baleno Car was not even touched by the
petitioners; in such a situation demanding a scooter or
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
other articles is ridiculous allegations, and more
particularly, when the both petitioner Nos.1 and 4 having
their own cars.
23. It is further contended that the allegation
against the petitioner No.4 are highly mischievous and
devoid of truth. The falsehood spewed by the respondent
No.3 that was limited to accusing petitioner No.4 being
improperly dressed in annulment petition, all of sudden
changed to sexual assault after six months. It is
pertinently relevant it was peak CORONA wherein it was
petitioner No.4 who was doing all household course
including cleaning, washing, cooking etc. It is interesting
to note that while annulment proceedings in Family Court,
Panchkula, she states that she feels uncomfortable as
petitioner No.4 does not dress well at home; there is no
mention of molestation in annulment petition, but it was
invented in the FIR after six months, which is nothing but
falsely implicating the petitioner No.4.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
24. It is further alleged that the whatsapp chats
exchanged by respondent No.3 with petitioner No.4 is
produced to show she has addressed the petitioner No.4
as brother and while annulment proceedings in Family
Court, Panchkula that she feels uncomfortable as the
petitioner No.4 does not dress well at home. There is no
mention of molestation in the annulment petition and after
six months the respondent made malicious charges.
25. The petitioner further contended that the
allegation of impotent and stated in FIR that the petitioner
No.1 never touched her, while the photographs of
honeymoon clearly falsify the falsehood of the respondent
No.3. But she is having illicit relationship with Mr.P.P.S.
Sodhi and he was making non veg comments on the
respondent No.3 and she was enjoying the same.
26. The petitioner further contended the respondent
No.3 filed false case and FIR against the petitioner and she
is managing a Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank. However,
despite being Chartered Accountant and Chief Manager of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
a Bank, she claims to be so naïve to always makes
payments to the petitioner in the form of cash and
jewelery. The respondent No.3 is a chronic liar and her
version is different from Karnataka police and annulment
petition and FIR filed in Haryana Police. The allegation
made by the respondent No.3 about ROKA ceremony is
self conflicting on the one hand and other hand she says
that they came for meeting the petitioner family. There is
no receipt of anything for simple rasam of havan/yajna
followed by chunni perform and not at all planned. The
respondent was time and again advised the petitioner No.1
to go for simple marriage at Bharat Electronic Club. She
also insisted on solemnizing marriage ceremony in
Panchkula for apparent reasons and no demand was ever
made for anything.
27. It is further alleged the respondent No.3
moving out of the house daily for the office, she is fully
independent lady entitled to bank quarters in Chandigarh
and Karnal and she was to living alone in bank quarters,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
she faced any harassment and she is entitled for
residential accommodation from bank and after one year
her stay at petitioner's house filed this false complaint at
the behest of her partners in crime.
28. It is further alleged the Panipat police merely
usurper of jurisdiction in the matter. No marriage has been
solemnized in their jurisdiction, none of the alleged offence
took place in their jurisdiction and petitioners never stayed
in their jurisdiction. The respondent-Deepika was earlier
staying in Chandigarh for seven years and then staying in
Karnal for two years and then in Bangalore for more than
one year. During last one decade she never stayed in
Panipat. Thus, City Tana Panipat has merely usurped the
jurisdiction when none vests in them. Neither the Panipat
police have locus standi in the matter nor Courts of
Panipat entitled to try any offence due to lack of
jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen there.
29. It is further alleged that no investigation can be
carried out by the Haryana police, all the evidence are
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
situated at Bangalore. None of the offences committed at
the jurisdiction of Panipat and no cause of action aroses at
Panipat and no blemished investigation carried out by the
Haryna police when the head constable entrusted with
investigation which defies all rules for dealing with 498-A
case.
30. The Haryana police with premeditated and sole
motive came to Bangalore for trapping the petitioner into
another false FIR has been registered for outraging the
modesty of woman in FIR No.50/2021 under Sections 353,
354 and 149 of IPC against petitioner No.3 who is 73
years old woman and the security supervisor of the society
have been falsely implicated.
31. The FIR filed in Panipat by Haryana police is bad
in law as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnab Goswami (supra) and subsequently the FIR
registered at Bangalore, which is also bad in law. No
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
32. It is further alleged that the Haryana police and
Advocates are acting at behest of Mr.PPS Sodhi, who is
influenced the High Court of Punjab and Haryana over
police and Subordinate Judiciary as well as on Advocates
and there is no chance of any fair trial or appropriate
representations.
33. It is further contended that the Advocate
representing the petitioner in Family Court in Panchkula
has refused to represent and file written statement after
receipt of fees and after lapse of one year and his
conversation with petitioners suggest he is more
interested in compromising the party rather than fighting
the case on merits. It is further contended that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held prior to arrest the police to satisfy
about the case prior to the arrest which was not followed
by the police the arrest is not required.
34. He further contended that the Haryana police
registered FIR with intention to extract money and there is
omnibus allegation made against every member of the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
family by implicating Section 498-A of IPC. The FIR sought
to be quashed and the case filed against the petitioner
only to shield the real criminal.
35. The FIR registered by Haryana police is
manifestation of brute misuse of powers by police and the
FIR can be filed by influencing the Panipat police only to
extract extortion to complete the unfinished agenda of
respondent No.3. The petitioner No.1 has already spent
substantial portion of his savings on honeymoon trip to
Bali, the air expenses from Bangalore to Panchkula and
other crises, ornaments, gifts, mobile phone and money
for eleven sisters from their relations as per their customs.
36. The petitioner has contended once the FIR has
registered the accused has approached the Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the allegation of impotency is a
common practice in the dowry harassment case. The
petitioners are innocent, they have been subjected to
mental torture, loss of reputation by the respondent. The
petitioner lost all his savings due to marriage of the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
petitioner No.1 with respondent No.3. The entire life of the
petitioner No.1 has been ruined. The Haryana police in
collusion with Karnataka police falsely implicated the age
old mother in the criminal case. The petitioners
permanently residing in Bengaluru and they are
government employees. The offences committed within
the jurisdiction of this Court and Haryana police cannot be
investigate the matter. Therefore, prayed for quashing the
FIR as well as charge-sheet in respect of Crime
No.33/2021 registered by Haryana police and the FIR
registered by the Bagalgunte police in Crime No.50/2021
have to be quashed. Hence, prayed for allowing the
petition.
37. The petitioners in support of his case he has
relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
38. The respondent No.3 appeared through her
counsel and filed statement of objection by denying all the
averments made in the petition filed by the petitioners as
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
false. The petitioners have harassed the respondent No.3
and she has filed complaint at Panipath police in detail.
The police have investigated the matter and filed charge-
sheet. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement was given by the
respondent No.3. The police have complied the section 41
(A) of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of arrest. The police
obtained body warrant as the petitioner was detained in
Bangalore central jail in respect of Crime No.50/2021. The
police have collected material pertaining to the case and
they have done impartial investigation and filed the
charge-sheet. There is no sufficient grounds urged by the
petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings and
hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
39. It is also contended by the respondent counsel
that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others reported in (2019) SCC 384, the Panipat police
have power to investigate the matter for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
petitioner is not entitled for any relief on that ground.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of petition.
40. The learned High Court Government Pleader
also seriously objected the petition and contended that at
the time of lockdown the respondent forced to leave the
matrimonial house and she has left some information to
the police by reserving her right to complaint. Accordingly,
she went and filed the complaint at Panipath police
wherein her parents are residing. The police have sent the
41(A) of Cr.P.C. notice but petitioner not co-operate with
the police. Therefore, they came for executing the warrant
obtained from the Panipat Court, but the petitioner
assaulted the police and outraged the modesty of the
woman Constable, therefore a crime number was
registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC. Therefore, it is
contended the grounds urged by the petitioner is not
sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings. There is
sufficient material placed against the petitioner to frame
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
charges against the petitioner and they have to approach
the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the
criminal proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
petition.
41. The main contention of the petitioner is that the
alleged offences under Section 498(A) of IPC have been
committed at Bangalore. Therefore, the Panipat Police do
not have the jurisdiction to register the FIR and conduct
investigation. Therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR
registered by Panipat, Hariyana Police in Crime
No.33/2021. The petitioner relied upon the various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of
quashing of the FIR. In the case of Rajendra
Ramchandra Kavalekar V/s State of Maharashtra
and Anr. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 286. The Hon'bel
Apex Court held at para 19 as under:
"19. It is also relevant to state that in
Navinchandra N. Majithia case the Court at para
22 of the judgment has observed: (SCC p. 649)
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
"22. So far as the question of territorial
jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is
concerned the main factor to be considered is the
place where the alleged offence was committed."
The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to
criminal offence would be decided on the basis of
the place of occurrence of the incident and not on
the basis of where the complaint was filed and the
mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular
State is not the sole criterion to decide that no
cause of action has arisen even partly within the
territorial limits of jurisdiction of another court.
The venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be
determined by the averments contained in the
complaint or the charge-sheet."
42. In another case reported in 2016(3) MH.L.J.
in the case of Sachee Agro Trading Private limited,
Nagpur V/s Union of India and Others, the Bombay
High Court as held at para 9 as under:
"9. Now, let us consider the facts of the said case.
In the said case (Navinchandra N. Majitha), the
petitioner was Managing Director of one company
at Mumbai. The said company had entered into a
business transaction with the respondent (first
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
informant) at Mumbai and there was business
dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent-complainant. A civil suit with regard to
the business dispute between the parties was filed
in the original side of the High Court at Bombay.
Thereafter, the first informant lodged the first
information report at Shillong. Contending that
though all the transactions between the parties
had at Mumbai, only in order to harass the
petitioner, the first information report was lodged
at Shilong in the State of Meghalaya, the petition
came to be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution at Mumbai. In this background, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, considered as to what is
meant by the term, "cause of action". It has been
held by Their Lordships that while considering as
to whether the part of cause of action arises
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the
Court will have to look into the pleadings made in
the petition and the relief sought in the petition.
Their Lordships in unequivocal terms observed
that though the entire transactions between the
parties had taken place at Mumbai, only in order
to harass the petitioner, the first information
report was lodged at Shilong. In this background,
the Apex Court held that the Bombay High Court
erred in holding that it had no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the petition."
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
43. In another case reported in 2023 SCC online
1185 in the Gluckrich Capital Private ltd. V/s State of
West Bengal and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court
quashed the FIR registered in Kolkata. In Para 14 of the
said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that a bare reading of the allegations of the
First Information Report would go to show that
dispute is purely of a civil nature relating to breach
of contractual obligations which is being given a
criminal contour which amounts to abuse of process
of law. It is also submitted that lodging of First
Information Report with the Police Station situate in
territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal, though the
entire transaction took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of New Delhi, is nothing but an abuse of
process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that this stands fortified from the fact that
a similar FIR on identical allegations has also been
registered in Delhi. To support the contention,
learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra
and Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal."
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
44. In another case State of The State of
Arunachal Pradesh V/s Kamal Agarwal and others
etc., reported in Crl.A.No.--/2024 (arising out of SLP
8663-8665/2023). Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings.
45. In another case, Prateek Bansal V/s State of
Rajasthan the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the criminal
proceedings in various FIR's registered in different States
and acquitted the accused persons. There is no second
opinion in respect of the principal laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in quashing the FIR, if there is no offence
made out for the investigation or if it is abuse of process
of law.
46. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.3 was held at Panchkula,
Haryana. Subsequently, the accused No.1 and his family
members have resided in Bangalore, where there was
serious allegation against the petitioner in respect of
harassment made by the petitioner's family to respondent
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
No.3. Accordingly, she has left Bangalore in 2020, by
giving intimation to Bagalagunte Police and she went to
Panipat, where her parents are residing. There she field a
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498(A)
of IPC and other offences, including dowry prohibition act
against the petitioner family.
47. Now, the question arises whether the Panipat
police can registered an FIR for the offence punishable
under Section 498(A) of IPC or any offences committed at
Bangalore in Bagalagunte Police Station limit. All the
above judgments lead by the petitioners are pertaining to
the civil dispute, contractual objections and for offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. Whereas,
the respondent counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Sujata
Mukharjee(Smt) V/s Prashant Kumar Mukherjee
reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30. Para 7 of the said judgment
reads as under:
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
"7. Despite service being effected on the private
respondents, no one has appeared for any of the
accused respondents. We have taken into
consideration the complaint filed by the appellant
and it appears to us that the complaint reveals
continuing offence of maltreatment and
humiliation meted out to the appellant in the
hands of all the accused respondents and in such
continuing offence, on some occasions all the
respondents had taken part and on other
occasion, on of the respondents had taken part.
Therefore, clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is cleary attracted. We,
therefore, set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal
case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps
should be taken to expedite the hearing. The
appeals are accordingly, allowed.
48. In another case reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384
in the case of Rupali devi v/s State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others held at para Nos.5, 6,7 8, 9, 10 and 16 as
under:
"5.The above two views which the learned
referring Bench had considered while making the
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
present reference, as already notice, were
founded on the peculiar facts of the two sets of
cases before the Court. It may be possible to
sustain both the views in the light of the facts of
the cases in which such view was rendered by this
Court. What confronts the court in the present
case is however different. Whether in a case
where cruelty had been committed in a
matrimonial home by the husband or the relatives
of the husband and the wife leaves the
matrimonial home and takes shelter in the
parental home located at a different place, would
the courts situated at the place of the parental
home of the wife have jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint under Section 498-A. This is in a
situation where no over act of cruelty or
harassment is alleged to have been committed by
the husband at the parental home where the wife
had taken shelter.
6. A look at the provisions of Chapter XIII of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
dealing with the jurisdiction of the criminal court
in inquiries and trails will now be required.
Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contemplates that "every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed". It is,
therefore, clear that in the normal course, it is the
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is
committed that would have the power and
authority to take cognizance of the offence in
question.
7. Sections 178 and 179 are exceptions to the
above rule and may be set out herein under:
"178. Place of inquiry or trail.-(a) when it is
uncertain in which of several local areas an
offences was committed, or
b) where an offence is committed partly in
one local area and partly in another, or
c) where an offence is a continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
d) where it consists of several acts done in
different local area,.
it may be inquired into or tried by a court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
179. Offence triable where act is done or
consequence ensues.-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."
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
8. Section 178 creates an exception to the
"ordinary rule" engrafted in Section 177 by
permitting the courts in another local area where
the offence is partly committed to take
cognizance. Also if the offence committed in one
local area continues in another local area, the
courts in the latter place would be competent to
take cognizance of the matter. Under Section 179,
if by reason of the consequences emanating from
a criminal act an offence is occasioned in another
jurisdiction, the court in that jurisdiction would
also be competent to take cognizance. Thus, if an
offence is committed partly in one place and
partly in another; or if the offence is a continuing
offence or where the consequences of a criminal
act result in an offence being committed at
another place, the exception to the "ordinary rule"
would be attracted and the courts within whose
jurisdiction the criminal act is committed will
cease to have exclusive jurisdiction to try the
offence.
9. At this stage it may also be useful to take note
of what can be understood to be a continuing
offence. The issue is no longer res integra having
been answered by this Court in State of Bihar v/s.
Deokaran Nenshi. Para 5 may be usefully noticed
in this regard: (SCC p. 892. para 5)
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
"5. A continuing offence is one which is
susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable
from the one which is committed once and for all.
It is one of those offences which arises out of a
failure to obey or comply with a rule or its
requirement and which involves a penalty, the
liability for which continues until the rule or its
requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every
occasion that such disobedience or non-
compliance occurs and reoccurs, there is the
offence committed. The distinction between the
two kinds of offences is between an act or
omission which constitutes an offence once and
for all and an act or omission which continues,
and there fore, constitutes a fresh offence every
time or occasion on which it continues. In the case
of a continuing offence, there is thus the
ingredient of continuance of the offence which is
absent in the case of an offence which takes place
when an act or omission is committed once and
for all."
10. The question that has been posed for an
answer has nothing to do with the provisions of
Sections 178(b) or (c). What has to be really
determined is whether the exception carved out
by Section 179 would have any application to
confer jurisdiction in the courts situated in the
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
local area where the parental house of the wife is
located.
16.We, therefore, hold that the Courts at the
place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or
driven away from the matrimonial home on
account of acts of cruelty committed by husband
or his relatives, would, dependant on the factual
situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a
complaint alleging commission of offences under
Section 498-A of the Penal Code."
49. The marriage of petitioner with respondent No.3
was performed at Haryana State, near the house of
parents of respondent No.3. Subsequently, respondent
No.3 stayed with petitioners at Bangalore, where the
harassment is said to be caused by the petitioners.
Thereafter, she left Bangalore and went to Panipat, where
her parents are residing and lodged the complaint. In view
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rupali Devi (Supra), though his matrimonial house at
Bangalore, but Haryana Police has also the authority to
registered the FIR and investigate the matter, wherein
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
respondent No.3 had taken shelter in her parents house at
Panipat Police Station limit. Therefore, offence under
Section 498(A) of IPC, which is a continuous offence, the
complaint can also be entertained by the Haryana Police
and they can file the charge sheet. Hence, the contention
of the petitioner that Haryana police do not have any
jurisdiction to register the case and file the charge sheet
cannot be accepted.
50. However, another contention raised by the
petitioner is that the respondent No.3 already filed a
complaint against the petitioner in Bagalagunte police and
there is no allegation made by her in the said complaint
and she has stated that she has voluntarily left the
matrimonial home to go to her parents home. It is
contended that that itself is a complaint and subsequent
complaint at Panipat is nothing but multiple lodging of
FIRs. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.
51. In support of his contention he has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
Ranjan Goswami (Supra) case and other cases. It is well
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions
has held that for same cause of action, multiple FIRs
cannot be filed and it is not sustainable. On keeping the
ratio in the mind, on perusal of the record there is no
second FIR filed in this case by the police on the very
same complaint. However, a document produced by the
petitioner reveals that as on 06.08.2020 the respondent
has given an information to the Bagalagunte police that
she is leaving matrimonial home for her convenience. The
letter or information given by respondent No.3 is annexed
at Annexure-G, which reads as under:
"I, Deepika Nandwani, resident of J-102, Vashnavi
Rathnum Jallahalli cross,T Dasrahalli, Bangalore,
working as Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank.
78 1. Arun Mansion JC Road, Bangalore was
married to Sh.Neeraj Kumar Chadha S/o
Sh.Sudesh Kumar Chadha at Panchkula (Haryana)
on 09.07.2019. At that time, my parents spend
huge money and after the marriage, I am living
with my husband and in-laws at Bangalore. But
my mother in law and brother in law is torturing
me mentally. He is also under influence of his
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
mother. They are seen by me conspiring with
each other against me. Therefore, I am afraid
that they may not eliminate me if I live in the
same house. Therefore, I have decided to leave
my matrimonial home and take only my personal
things-ie. Clothes, footwear, my laptop and my
owned Car. I am leaving the house not willfully
but under compulsion to save myself from the
brutal clutches of my husband, his mother and
brother.
Kindly depute police officer to help me for
taking my belongings from the house to avoid any
un-wanted scene, which may be created by
husband and other in-law family members.
I reserve my right to file detail complaint in
the concerned Police Station of jurisdiction."
52. Another document produced by petitioner
shows that respondent No.3 has stated she is taking away
the car, laptop, cloths and required books to her quarters
given by the employer. Another letter produced by the
petitioner of respondent No.3 dated 08.08.2020 states
that she is residing at Dasara Alees in Vaishnavi Rathnam
apartment, where she is working as a Chief Manager
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
residing with her husband and stated that there is no
quarrel between with regard to the family and she has
voluntarily with mutual consent residing separately. In
view of these two documents, the petitioner has
contended that there is no allegation made by her against
the petitioner in the first intimation given to the police.
Therefore, he contended that after going to Panipat she
has cooked the story against the petitioner and his family
members.
53. On careful reading of the above said document
that is intimation given by respondent No.3, she has
stated that "She reserves her right to file detail complaint
in the concerned police Station of jurisdiction". Later, she
has filed a complaint to the Panipat police on 16.01.2021.
In turn, the police have registered the FIR against the
petitioner and they investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner
cannot be accepted that there are multiple FIR filed
against him for same cause of action by the respondent
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
No.3. On the other hand, only one FIR is filed at Panipat
police and they have filed the charge sheet. Merely,
intimation given by respondent No.3 during the Covid-19
lockdown that itself is not a ground to say there are
multiple FIR against the petitioner.
54. On the other hand, the Panipat police sent a
notice to the petitioners under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C.
through RPAD, but it appears two police officials from
Panipat police obtained the warrant from the Magistrate
and came to the Bagalagunte police and with the help of
Bagalgunte police, they went to the house of petitioner in
the night hours on 09.02.2021. They arrested the
petitioner, at that time there was scuffle between the
petitioners family and the police. Therefore, Bagalagunte
police registered FIR in Crime No.50/2021 for the offence
punishable under Section 149, 353 and 354 of IPC, which
is also challenged under this writ petition.
55. On perusal of the complaint and the statement
of family members of the complainant reveals the family
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
respondent No.3 has spend lot of money toward the
marriage at Panchkula, Haryana and had given gold and
cash to the petitioners. They also paid extra amounts
during the engagement ceremony and the marriage was
held at a Redwood resorts at Panchkula, Haryana. She has
specifically made serious allegation against the petitioner
Nos.1 to 4, alleging that they demanded money from
respondent No.3 and treated her like paying guest in the
matrimonial home. There are various serous allegation
made against accused Nos.1 to 4 about the harassment
made to respondent No.3. Hence, it cannot be said that
these are all omnibus allegations against the petitioners.
The list of documents, bills all are produced for having
purchased the gold ornaments and spending money
toward the hotels, resorts, etc., Therefore, it is all a matter
of trial and this Court cannot conduct a mini trial for
quashing the FIR or charge sheet filed by Panipat police in
Haryana State.
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
56. The apart, the petitioners have stated that
there is no serious allegations in the divorce petition filed
by respondent No.3(annulling the marriage between them
for non consummation of marriage). There are serious
allegations in the complaint. The averments made in the
matrimonial case may be different from the allegation
made in the complaint. If, any contradictions are there
they cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint or
charge sheet. That has to be confronted with the maker of
document / respondent-3 in cross examination as per
Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act. The alleged sexual
harassment is made by accused No.4 in the house against
respondent No.3, that has to be adjudicated by the Court
of Magistrate, who conducted the Trial. The disputed facts
cannot be considered by the High Court for quashing the
charge sheet. Therefore, in my view the contentions raised
by the petitioner/party-in-person for quashing the FIR or
charges sheet filed before the Panipat Court by the Panipat
police, this Court cannot quash the charge sheet, merely
because the petitioners are residing 2000 k.m. away from
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
Bengaluru and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are not able to
travel, as they are aged persons. That cannot be a ground
for quashing the criminal proceedings.
57. The another contention raised by the petitioner
is that the paramer of respondent No.3 said to be
influencing the police/advocate and even the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, that cannot be accepted. Merely,
because in the matrimonial case, his advocate not filed
statement of objections even after receiving fee, the
petitioner cannot suspect entire judicial system in Panjab
and Haryana State. On this ground charge sheet cannot be
quashed.
58. However, in respect of FIR crime No.50/2021
where a complaint field by the police officer of
Bagalagunte police that when they went to the house of
accused at 10:30 p.m. on 09.02.2021 at night hours in the
apartment, the petitioners resisted the arrest and criminal
force was used on the police while discharging the official
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
duty. Therefore, an FIR was registered for the offence 149,
353, and 354 of IPC.
59. The petitioner has stated that the police have
not complied of provision of Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C. They
came to the house and they have assaulted the petitioner
and his family members. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged
person. Hence, it is contended absolutely there is no
criminal force on the police. They have false by implicated
him and sent him to judicial custody and he has been
released on bail.
60. On perusal of the records, especially the FIR
registered by the Bagalagunte police, where Nagesh H.V.
PSI has given statement that at the request of Panipat
police, he went along with ASI and Head constable and at
that time the accused persons have assaulted them.
Admittedly, the notice u/s 41 (A), which is said to be
prepared on 27.01.2021 same was not served on the
petitioner. Once again the police have issued another
notice dated 03.02.2021 and the police asked him to
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
attend the police station, on 07.02.2021. Both the letters
said to have reached the petitioners on 07.02.2021.
Whether the notice was served or not? Is it not possible
for the petitioner to appear before Panipat police in such a
short notice? are all matter of trial. Meanwhile, the police
came to arrest the petitioner without any previous
intimation with a warrant at 9:30 p.m. in a residential
apartment and they have created a scene. The petitioner
also stated that the CCTV footage of the incident was also
destroyed by the police. Considering the facts of the case,
when the police came for arresting the petitioner in night
hours, that to for an offence punishable under Section
498(A) IPC and the case is registered in Panipat, Haryana
District, they could have asked the petitioner to come and
appear before the jurisdictional police Station, by serving
the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. But, they have
arrested the petitioner at night hours, definitely the family
members might have agitated the arrest. That itself
cannot be considered as obstructing discharge of official
duty by the police. First of all, the police ought not to
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391
WP No. 17007 of 2021
have went to the petitioner's house in the night hours for
arresting the petitioner an offence punishable under
Section 498(A) of IPC, which is punishable with only upto
3 years imprisonment. The police could have given
intimation and asked him to come to police station, even
by serving a bailable warrant. Without doing so, they have
forcefully entered the house of the petitioners for arresting
him and at that time there was some scuffle. It cannot be
said the petitioner intentionally or wilfully shown any
criminal force on the police while discharging their official
duty. Therefore, I am of the view that the FIR registered
by Bagalagunte police in Crime No.50/2021 for offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 354 read with Section
149 of IPC is nothing but abuse of process of law and
liable to be quashed.
61. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 is allowed in part.
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36391 WP No. 17007 of 2021 ii. The FIR in Crime No.50/2021, registered by Bagalagunte police for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 354 read with Section 149 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
iii. As regard the writ petition for quashing the FIR in Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana Police, Panipat and charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 354-C read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SDU/KJJ/NJ LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 2 CT:SI