Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

JUDGMENT 1999 Supp(3) SCR 348 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted.

The appellant-wife contends that she had married to Rajinder Singh- Respondent no. 2 on December 9, 1990. Her parents were resident of Delhi and the marriage was performed at Delhi. A daughter was born on 19th December, 1991. It is her contention that on 19th January, 1992, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home in Patiala with 4 weeks baby girl and that at that time, she had only wearing apparel.

On the same day, that is, 19th January, 1992 at 3.40 p.m., a complaint bearing no. DD no. 18 was lodged by her at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala making various allegations of torture and dowry demand against her husband and parents-in-law. Thereafter, she came to Delhi to live with her parents. Within that time also, threats by her husband continued. On 30th April, 1992, a complaint was lodged against her husband in the Women Cell, Delhi. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1993, the impugned FIR no. 34 of 1993 under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. for the alleged occurrence dated 9th December, 1990 at Patiala was lodged at Police Station, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Rajinder Singh, respondent no. 2 was arrested on 4th February, 1993 at Patiala and certain recoveries were effected and he was brought to Delhi and produced before the Metropolitan magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody and, thereafter, released him on bail on 9th February, 1993.

As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the alleged offence took place at Patiala and that the articles given at the time of marriage were returned at Patiala on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 19th January 1992 lodged by the appellant at Patiala. A compromise was arrived at between the parties on the same day and is recorded at the Police Station as DD no. 28. He further submitted that as husband has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, as a counter blast appellant filed complaint to the DCP (Women Crime Cell), Delhi on 10th June, 1992 in which she never stated that she had not received back all dowry articles or her Stridhan. Thereafter, impugned FIR no. 34 dated 23rd January, 1992 was lodged in which she has made material improvements. On the basis of the said FIR, husband and his family members were harassed and arrested. Various other statements are made in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent-husband and also in rejoinder filed by the appellant.

In our view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The limited question is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it appears that learned Judge has considered the provisions applicable for criminal trial. The High Court arrived at the conclusion by appreciating the allegation made by the parties that the S.H.O., Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. arose at Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because :