Delhi District Court
Smt. Nisha Malik W/O Sh. Saurabh Juneja vs The State on 29 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. TALWANT SINGH: DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
DELHI:
Cr.(R) No. 216/16
CNR No. DLKA010058422016
Smt. Nisha Malik W/o Sh. Saurabh Juneja,
D/o Sh. Gulshan Juneja,
R/o C10/14, First Floor,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 .....Revisionist.
Vs.
The State
Through SHO, PS Krishna Nagar,
East District, Delhi110051 .......Respondent.
Date of Institution : 07.05.2016 Date of Reserving for Orders : 06.06.2016 Date of Order : 29.07.2016
1. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist assailing order dated 22.04.2016 passed by Ms. Surabhi Sharma Vats, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application of revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present matter are that on 26.02.2014, revisionist Ms. Nisha Malik was married to Saurabh Juneja as per the Hindu rites and customs at Karkardooma, East Cr.No. 216/16 Nisha Malik Vs. State. Page No.1/5 Delhi with great pump and show. After her marriage, revisionist went to her matrimonial home at Rani Bagh. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruel treatment at the hands of her husband and inlaws in her matrimonial home. Consequently, she was pushed out of her matrimonial home and she started residing with her sister at Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
On 14.02.2016, revisionist moved a detailed written complaint to the SHO, PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. However, the SHO concerned did not lodge any FIR on her complaint. Thereafter, she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Court of Ms. Surabhi Sharma Vats, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD Courts, Delhi. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said complaint vide its order dated 22.04.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed by the revisionist.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and the facts presented by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have given my thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced by the parties.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist had argued that Ld. Trial Court had grossly erred in appreciating the facts of the present case as well as the Ld. Trial Court could not appreciate Section 178 of Cr.P.C as well as Section 498A of IPC on the basis of which the revisionist had filed her complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Ld. Trial Court. In order to support her contentions that Cr.No. 216/16 Nisha Malik Vs. State. Page No.2/5 Ld. Trial Court has also relied upon the judgements passed by Hon'ble High Court in cases titled Dr. V.B. Bhatia & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors in W.P. (Crl) 1771/2012 and Dr. Baljeet Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr in W.P. (Crl.) 503/2013. Consequently, Ld. Counsel has argued that the order under challenge may be setaside.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that offences alleged by the revisionist are not of continuing nature as the facts of the present controversy do not reveal any continuity in the sequences of facts. However, the facts so alleged in the complaint are merely pertaining to the Rani Bagh area, where the revisionist had joined her matrimonial home immediately after her marriage. Finally, the revisionist was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 18.07.2015 and no facts have been mentioned in the complaint as to continuity of atrocities and harassment meted out to her by the respondent husband and inlaws thereafter. Consequently, the Ld. Addl. PP submitted that present revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. In order to appreciate contentions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, it is pertinent to mention Section 178 Cr.P.C, which is as under :
"178 Place of inquiry or trial.(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local area an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area Cr.No. 216/16 Nisha Malik Vs. State. Page No.3/5 and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area 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 area."
7. Perusal of the said section clearly shows that the question for consideration in the present controversy is whether the facts alleged by the revisionist show that offences committed upon her were partly committed in Rani Bagh or partly in Krishna Nagar, Delhi or whether the offences alleged are of continuing nature or not.
8. In order to answer the aforesaid proposition of law, Ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the landmark judgement in Y. Abrahim Ajith & Ors Vs. Inspector of Police, 2004 Cr.L.J. 4180, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
"3. That cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the Court where no part of offence was committed."
Hence, in the instant case the controversy as put forth by the revisionist is that she was harassed and maltreated at her matrimonial home at Rani Bagh by her husband and inlaws for or in connection with dowry. Thereafter, on 18.07.2015 she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. However, no facts have been Cr.No. 216/16 Nisha Malik Vs. State. Page No.4/5 mentioned by her in her complaint as to whether the acts of her husband and inlaws continued when she started residing with her sister at Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Consequently, there is no continuity of the offences alleged by her against the respondent and as well it cannot be said offences alleged by her were partly committed in Rani Bagh and partly in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The mere allegation of mental agony does not bring any accolades for her to approach the jurisdiction of the Court of Krishna Nagar, Police Station.
9. Before parting with the present order, I would like to mention that the judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for revisionist are based on different and distinct facts than the facts of present controversy. However, the ratios laid down in the said judgements are not at all disputed.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any impropriety or infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the present revision petition is without merits. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. A copy of this order along with TCR be sent back.
12. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Talwant Singh)
th
On this 29 day of July, 2016 District & Sessions Judge, East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Cr.No. 216/16 Nisha Malik Vs. State. Page No.5/5