Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Crl.M.A. No. 2651/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exception.

W.P.(CRL) 444/2018 and Crl.M.A. No. 2650/2018

1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 55/2017 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS CWC Nanak Pura and the proceeding pursuant thereto.

2. The main grounds inter alia urged by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR in question are that FIR is part of the series of false and frivolous litigation instituted by respondent No. 2, the Petitioners are borne and brought up in South Africa, thus citizens of South Africa, being foreign residents they cannot be subject to Indian Law merely because respondent No. 2 is living in India, no approval under Section 188 Cr.P.C. having been taken the registration of FIR and cognizance thereon is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners also urges that no cognizance of the offences could have been taken as the same is barred by limitation as per Section 467/468/469 Cr.P.C.

Para 5:- What is not in dispute between the parties is that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 met through a website. Their marriage ceremony was performed in Gujarat on 23 rd June, 2015. The marriage was registered in New Delhi on 26th June, 2015 under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA'). Respondent No. 2 was at the time of marriage, as she is now, residing with her parents in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

10. Even noting that the marriage between the parties was performed on 23rd June, 2015 at Gujrat, the specific allegation of the complainant being that the dowry articles were entrusted at Sheraton Hotel, Saket, New Delhi, harassment for not meeting the demands was made at Delhi, the above noted FIR cannot be quashed on the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner who states that since marriage is performed in Gujarat there can be no other ceremonies at Delhi and thus no entrustment could take place at Delhi. Dehors the ceremonies, the entrustment of dowry articles/gifts at Delhi would be a fact which is required to be investigated during the course of investigation and required to be proved during trial. Since part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the requirement of taking prior permission of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. does not arise and the FIR in question cannot be quashed on this ground as well.

11. In the decision reported as 1993 (3) SCC 609 Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein offences were allegedly committed by NRI partly in Dubai and partly in India, Supreme Court held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. was not required.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also insists on the inconsistencies in the FIR made. At this stage this Court will not appreciate the merits and demerits of the FIR in question. Needless to note that during the course of investigation if no offence is found be made out in Delhi or against any of the accused it would be for the investigating agency to form an opinion on the same in accordance with law and file the report accordingly.

15. In Fatima Bibi (supra) the Supreme Court dealing with an appeal wherein the order of taking cognizance by the court was under challenge, while discussing the scope of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 Cr.P.C. clarified that in the Constitutional Scheme of our country, all laws made by Parliament primarily are applicable only within the country. Ordinarily, therefore, all persons who commit a crime in India can be tried in any place where the offence is committed. Section 4 of the IPC however extends the scope of applicability of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of India to try a case, the cause of action of which took place outside the geographical limits if committed by a citizen of India on an aircraft or ship registered in India. As noted above part of cause of action in the present case having taken place in Delhi it cannot be held that due to non-compliance of Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. the FIR in question is required to be quashed.