Delhi District Court
Sh. Sindhu Natha Goswami vs State Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2018
Criminal Revision No.169/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 169/2018
Under Section : 397/401 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. : 296/2016
PS : Mandawali
CNR No. : DLET01-005815-2018
In the matter of :-
1. SH. SINDHU NATHA GOSWAMI
S/o. Sh. Anant Goswami.
2. SH. ANANT GOSWAMI
S/o. Sh. Jay Narayan.
3. SMT. DAMYANTI GOSWAMI
W/o. Sh. Anant Goswami.
4. SH. MATSYENDRANATH GOSWAMI
S/o. Sh. Anand Goswami
Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are
R/o. Plot No.2, House No.459,
Hanumanpur, Chaundauli,
District Mughalsarai, Uttarpradesh-232101.
5. SMT. PRAMILA GOSWAMI.
W/o. Sh. Ajay Goswami,
R/o. 37, Ramaji Chak,
Town/Village-Danapur, Ancha : Maner,
District : Patna, Bihar-801503.
6. SMT. URMILA GOSWAMI
W/o. Sh. Shekhar Goswami.
7. SH. SHEKHAR GOSWAMI
S/o. Sh. Gyanath Goswami.
Petitioner nos.6 & 7 are
R/o. 103/91/91/1, Refujee Colony,
Naini, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211008.
Page 1 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.169/2018
8. SMT. SHARMILA GOSWAMI
W/o. Sh. Akhilesh Giri.
9. SH. AKHILESH GIRI
S/o. Sh. Ramdhar Giri.
Petitioner nos. 8 & 9 are
R/o. 297/Dabloo, 4/103, Jabalpur,
Tehsil Jabalpur, Dist. Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh.
............PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. STATE NCT of Delhi)
2. SMT. PRIYANKA GOSWAMI
W/o. Sh. Sindhu Nath Goswami,
R/o. 5A/786, 2nd Floor, Gali No.1,
Main Road Mandawali, Delhi-92.
..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 30.08.2018
Date of reserving order : 13.12.2018
Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 24.03.2018, passed by trial court in a case titled as State v. Sindhu Nath Goswami & Ors., bearing FIR No.296/2016, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. Vide impugned order, trial court summoned accused Sindhunath, Pramila, Sharmila, Urmila, Matsyender, Damyanti, Anant, Shekhar and Akhilesh (petitioners herein) for offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are Page 2 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 that on the complaint of complainant Smt. Priyanka Goswami (respondent no.2 herein) and after obtaining permission from the senior officer to register the FIR, FIR under Section 498A/506/34 IPC was registered in the present case. Complainant alleged that she was married to Sindhu Nath Goswami on 29.11.2011. In the marriage, number of articles were given towards dowry including cash amount against demand. All jewelleries of the complainant were taken by father-in-law of the complainant and whenever she demanded, she was taunted for the same. She was also beaten by father-in-law. Complainant came to Delhi at her parental home, in January 2012 to appear in an exam and at that time her husband made telephonic calls to her. He demanded to come back along with money for Almirah, washing machine, fridge etc. Father of complainant went to her husband and gave Rs.70,000/- in cash. Later on, husband of complainant demanded car and at that time father of complainant came to their place at New Bungaigoan. He gave Rs.1 lac in cash to husband of complainant. Husband of complainant deposited Rs.80,000/- in the account of brother of complainant for purchase of car. In July 2012, complainant and her husband came to Delhi. At that time, her brother purchased a Ford Ikon car in his name against Rs.1.1 lac and handed over the same to husband of complainant. Thereafter, complainant had been at Mughal Sarai and thereafter, at her matrimonial home at New Bungaigoan. She was not taken care of, rather she was taunted, abused and threatened to take divorce. Later on, complainant developed tumor in her spine and she had to come to Delhi for her Page 3 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 treatment. Finally, she was admitted in Fortis hospital, Gurgaon, but her husband did not provide financial support for her treatment and refused to give money. Her husband stopped taking calls as well. On 23.08.2015 father-in-law of complainant came to Mandawali, Delhi, at the parental home of complainant and he abused complainant and threatened to take divorce, else he would make their life hale.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against petitioners herein for aforesaid offences on 24.03.2018. On the same day, after taking cognizance of the offences, trial court ordered to summon petitioners herein for aforesaid offences. GROUNDS :-
4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, petitioners herein have filed this revision petition mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That chargesheet filed in the present case is contrary to the Section 177 of Cr.P.C, because all alleged allegations are within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandaoli, Mughal Sarai, (U.P.); Munger (Bihar) and Gurugram, Haryana. No part of allegation attract Section 498A/406 IPC, which was alleged to be happened in Delhi. (Ref. Section 177 Cr.P.C. is read as "Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and try by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed".) ● That marriage was solemnized at Central Institute, Jamalpur, Munger, Bihar and there is no allegation in the FIR or in the final chargesheet that any demand of dowry was made on or before solemnization of marriage.
● That there is no evidence on record available for allegations of Page 4 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 complainant. All the public witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C is related to respondent no.2 with blood relations and neighbours of complainant. All of them are residing in Munger (Bihar), whereas all alleged incidents took place in Mughal Sarai (U.P.). Therefore, PWs had no knowledge about alleged incidents.
● That all the allegations made by complainant do not attract provision under Section 498A IPC. (Ref. State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 & Mohammad Hoshan v. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 414).
● That even considering the allegations and chargesheet about the harassment to complainant and taunting, same do not attract the provisions laid down under Section 498A IPC.
● That continuous demand or continuous harassment is not reported and complainant continued to live with petitioner no.1 in her matrimonial home, after every allegation. Complainant did not feel mental cruelty. Nothing had happened before or after marriage as alleged in the FIR.
● That SHO, PS Mandawali, Delhi, should have lodged Zero FIR and transfer this FIR to PS concerned at Mughal Sarai (U.P.) for further investigation. Witnesses would be examined in the local jurisdiction, where the alleged incident had taken place. Chargesheet would not come, because it does not attract the provisions under Section 498A/406 IPC.
● That petitioner nos. 5,6 and 8 are married sisters-in-law of the complainant and they did not have any concern with the present case. Petitioner nos. 7 and 9 are brothers-in-law of petitioner no.1.
Page 5 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 They have nothing to deal with the allegations in the FIR. ● That order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C summoning the accused to stand trial was held revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C (Ref. Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors v. Uttam, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1028).
● That order of summon was passed on 24.03.2018, issued on 06.04.2018 and summons for all accused persons were sent to the house of petitioner no.2 and the summons were served on 25.06.2018. Thus, present petition is within limitation. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
5. Ld. counsel for petitioners argued on the same lines as taken in the ground of petition. Ld. counsel for petitioners relied upon certain judgments, which are as follows :-
● Manju Dutta v. State & Ors. 2013 II AD (Delhi) 286. ● Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2009 (4) RCR 918. ● Malkiat Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr. 2005 [2] JCC 1237. ● Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. JT 2004 (6) SC 497.
6. Per contra, ld. Addl. PP for State along with ld. counsel for complainant/respondent no.2 argued that there is territorial jurisdiction to the court having jurisdiction over Mandawali, Delhi and there are sufficient allegations to summon the petitioners as accused.
Ld. Addl. PP for State relied upon certain judgments, which are as follows :-
● Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl.) Page 6 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 No.8078 of 2010 decided by Supreme Court on 11.04.2011. ● Surinder Kumar Yadav v. Others v. State, 84 (2000) DLT 289.
7. The plea taken by petitioners herein, thereby denying the allegations made against them cannot be entertained at this stage, because in revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot decide factual disputes.
8. In the complaint, complainant has made allegations against each petitioner herein, in respect of different incidents of beating, taunting and harassment. The legal issue raised by ld. counsel for petitioners relate to territorial jurisdiction and his contentions had been that no cause of action took place in Delhi, so as to empower the court at Delhi to try this case. The judgment cited by ld. counsel for petitioners were relied upon to show that in absence of any allegation of offences committed at Delhi, such cases were quashed and directed to be returned by High Court of Delhi as well as Supreme Court in the respective cases.
9. Every case is decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and evidence.
The facts alleged in this case, do refer to one instance of father-in- law of complainant threatening and abusing her at Mandawali, Delhi on 23.08.2015. There is also allegation that demand made by her husband to bring money, was conveyed to complainant, when she was at her parental home in Delhi. Car was also allegedly purchased and handed over to husband of complainant at Delhi. In the subsequent reply given to queries raised by IO, complainant alleged that she had not received any streedhan articles from her in-laws. As per legal principles explained by Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kumari (supra), the offence of demand of dowry coupled with Page 7 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.169/2018 threat of dire consequences and cruelty, are continuing. Therefore, if any part of such threat or cruelty was caused at Delhi, then Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction to try such cases. In the case of Surender Kumar Yadav v. State (supra), Division Bench of Delhi High Court reiterated the legal principle that when offence of cruelty is continuing, then it does not stop merely by leaving the matrimonial home. It continues up to parental home of the girl as well. In the same case, it was also observed that non return of streedhan is one of the facets of cruelty and the girl is entitled to receive back her streedhan article at the place, where she is presently staying.
10.Therefore, the allegations made in the present case, if analysed on the parameters of aforesaid legal principles, would show that court having jurisdiction over area of Mandawali, is having territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and hence, same is dismissed and impugned order dated 24.03.2018 is hereby upheld.
11.Parties are directed to appear before trial court on date already fixed by trial court.
12.TCR be sent back along with copy of order to trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALAPULASTYA Location: Court No.3, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.12.18 17:10:29 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 18.12.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 8 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 8 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi