Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Chopra vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 2 August, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13446 of 2010
Date of Decision : August 02, 2010.
Varinder Chopra .....Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to transfer the FIR No.112 dated 3.5.2010 registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.), under Sections 498-A IPC (Annexure P-2), to the State of Punjab for the purpose of investigation and further action in accordance with law.
The above-stated FIR has been registered on a complaint made by respondent No.3 who got married to the son of the petitioner, (Varun Chopra) on 27.2.2009. Varun Chopra is stated to be working in Sweden and after solemnization of marriage on 27.2.2009, he left for Sweden on 11.3.2009. Respondent No.3 also traveled to Sweden on 13.3.2009 allegedly on a tourist visa and on its expiry after three months, C.W.P.No.13446 of 2010 2 she came back to India on 6.6.2009. It appears that the marriage unfortunately went into bad weather culminating into registration of the subject FIR on 3.5.2010. If one reads the allegations levelled by respondent No.3, it is apparent that a major part of the alleged incident took place in Sweden, followed by substantial part of the incident in Ludhiana and Hoshiarpur (State of Punjab) and few incidents in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The petitioner, who is father-in-law of respondent No.3, accordingly seeks a direction for transfer of the aforesaid FIR to the State of Punjab for its further investigation. It is urged that the Himachal Pradesh Police has no territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the subject FIR as all the allegations took place within the State of Punjab or in Sweden. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navinchandra N.Majithia versus State of Maharashtra and others {2000 (7) SCC 640}, as well as of Delhi High Court in Niraj Trivedi versus State of Bihar and others, {2008 (3) JCC 1541}.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the FIR which is admittedly at the stage of investigation.
It would not be expedient for this Court to express any opinion touching the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR. The issue raised in this writ petition, therefore, requires determination on the premise that if the allegations contained in the FIR were to be true, whether or not the Himachal Pradesh Police has got territorial jurisdiction to investigate the FIR. In Navinchandra N. Majithia's case (supra), the C.W.P.No.13446 of 2010 3 contractual transaction which led to initiation of criminal and civil proceedings between the parties, had taken place in Mumbai and both the Companies had their Corporate Offices in Mumbai only. No transaction whatsoever, had taken place outside Mumbai, much less at Shillong. The criminal complaint moved in the State of Meghalaya and entertained by the Special Superintendent of Police, Shillong, was therefore held to be an extra jurisdictional attempt of arms twisting. The investigation of the complaint was accordingly ordered to be transferred to the Mumbai Police by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In Niraj Trivedi's case (supra), also the FIR which was result of a matrimonial dispute, was got registered by the father-in-law of the petitioner-husband in Patna (Bihar) when admittedly his daughter who was stated to be the victim of cruelty etc., was in U.S.A. where the accused-husband was also staying. A plain reading of the FIR did not disclose a single instance having taken place out of Delhi or U.S.A., namely, at Patna (Bihar).
On the contrary, the subject FIR does refer the incident(s) alleged to have been taken place in Himachal Pradesh also. The major events/incidents have allegedly taken place in Sweden. Respondent No.3, the alleged victim, is admittedly a permanent resident of Palampur (Himachal Pradesh) where her parents are also living and the marriage of the parties was solemnized and further dowry articles were also entrusted. After the unfortunate matrimonial dispute, she is admittedly staying with her parents.
C.W.P.No.13446 of 2010 4
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, which is continuous in nature, it would be too pre-mature and presumptuous to hold at this stage that no incident took place in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As observed earlier, the FIR is still under the investigation stage. The petitioner or for that matter the other accused persons are at liberty to convince the Investigating Agency that the alleged offence was never committed in the Himachal Pradesh. If the Investigating Agency at Himachal Pradesh reaches such a conclusion, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek his remedy as may be available to him in law.
Disposed of.
Dasti.
August 02, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE