Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumawat And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 May, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-18748 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18748 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.05.2013
Dinesh Kumawat and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioners.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.620 dated 20.11.2012, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, and all subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom.
The learned counsel contends that the petitioners are living separately. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR. The learned counsel further contends that the proceedings deserve to the quashed on the ground of jurisdiction as well as no cause of action qua the petitioners arose at Ballabhgarh. Cites Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008(2) R.C.R (Criminal); Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. CRM No.M-18748 of 2013 -2- Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2004(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 988; and Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 835.
Heard.
A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to harassment, beating and demand of dowry. It is also specifically averred in the FIR that even after shifting of complainant to her parental home at Ballabhgarh, the accused had been extending threats to her. The Court within whose jurisdiction consequence has ensued, has the jurisdiction to try offence. The contents of the FIR shows that the complainant is still suffering mental cruelty while residing at her parental house. Cruetly is continuing offence within the meaning of Section 178 of the Code. Therefore, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the Courts at Ballabhgarh, do not have the jurisdiction. The cited case law are distinguishable on facts.
In the circumstances, no case for quashing the FIR is made out, at this stage.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Dismissed.
30.05.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE