Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajendra Nath Datt And Ors. vs Union Territory And Anr. on 18 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)DMC447
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 188 dated 15.6.2005 registered under the provisions of Sections 406, 498A, 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station, Manimajra. Chandigarh.
2. Rajendra Nath-petitioner No. 1 was married to the complainant -Roma Datt on 16.11.1986 at Karnal. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of Rajendra Nath Datt. The FIR under the aforesaid provisions of law. at the behest of the complainant, even though after several years of marriage, reflects the ill-treatment meted out to the complainant.
3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the parties had got married at Karnal and had shifted to Delhi thereafter. Subsequently, they resided at Vadodara and after nine years, the complainant is stated to have come to Chandigarh at the house of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Since the marriage was performed at Karnal and subsequently the parties resided at Delhi and Vadodara, there was no question of handing over the articles of dowry at Chandigarh where the FIR is stated to have been lodged. Reference was also made to the articles of dowry as reflected in Annexure P2. He contends that these articles were in Vadodara and not with the petitioners. On the strength of the aforesaid contention, it was sought to be pleaded that no cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh. Hence, FIR deserves to be quashed in view of the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as III (2004) CCR 130 (SC) : II (2004) DMC 371 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4286.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that a perusal of the FIR with a specific reference to para Nos. 12 to 16 thereof clearly reveals that even if offence of Section 406 is not made out to have been committed at Chandigarh, yet the provisions of Section 498A are clearly attracted and establish the commission of offence at Chandigarh.
5. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh contends that the case is now fixed for framing of the charge, after the completion of process of investigation, for 10.3.2007.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the complete paper book.
7. The present petition is for quashing of the FIR on the ground that no investigation could have been carried out in Chandigarh for the reason that no offence was committed here and the parties never resided at Chandigarh.
8. A perusal of the FIR, however, reveals that there are sufficient allegations against the petitioners for having committed the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498A is reproduced as hereunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
9. This Court, while dealing with the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations. Even if the commission of some offence is disclosed from a reading of the FIR, that is sufficient to get the investigating process into motion. Since commission of the offence under Section 498A at Chandigarh is prima facie depicted from the allegations in the FIR, hence, there is no infirmity in the process initiated by the prosecution at Chandigarh. Besides, the challan has been put in and the case is now fixed for framing of charge. Submission of challan is prima facie indicative of some incriminating material against the petitioners. In these circumstances, therefore, the plea is neither just nor tenable.
For the reasons aforesaid, the said petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.