Amarpreet Kaur vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The issues involved in both these cases (Cr. M. No. 15872M/96 and Cr. M. No. 18620M/96) are same and, therefore, both the applications are disposed of by this common order.

Harpreet Kaur, the secondrespondent in both these applications is the wife of Amardeep Singh, the first petitioner in Cr. M. No. 18620M/96. The other two petitioners in that application are Rajinder Singh and Hamir Kaur (father and mother respectively of Amardeep Singh). Amarpreet Kaur, the petitioner in Cr. M. No. 15872M/96 is the sister of the above said Amardeep Singh.

The marriage between Amardeep Singh and second respondentHarpreet Kaur took place on 9.12.1992 at Chandigarh. Amardeep Singh is a resident of Chandigarh and is working there. His father and mother are admittedly residing in the State of Uttar Pardesh. Their daughter Amarpreet Kaur, according to them is also residing with them at Uttar Pradesh, whereas the second respondentHarpreet Kaur claims that Amarpreet Kaur had been residing at Chandigarh alongwith them so long as she (Harpreet Kaur) and her husband Amardeep Singh were residing at Chandigarh.

Harpreet Kaur lodged a complaint before the Police Station, Tohana on the basis of Which FIR No. 91 dated 5.4.1996 under sections 498A and 406 IPC came to be registered. It is to quash this FIR that the petitioners have filed these petitions.

In the FIR, the second respondent Harpreet Kaur has alleged that she is a resident of Chander Kalan within the limits of Police Station Tohana and that her marriage with Amardeep Singh took place on 9.12.1992. As per allegations in the FIR, specific items of gold ornaments, cash and other articles were given to the petitioners. The allegations also show that she was living with her husband Amardeep Singh at Chandigarh, and that her sisterinlaw Amarpreet Kaur (petitioner in Cr. M. No. 15872M/96) was also living with them, whereas the parents of her husband (who are residents of Uttar Pradesh) used to visit them. As per allegations in the FIR, whenever they came they used to abuse her and instigate her husband against her by saying that she had brought less dowry. Amarpreet Kaur is also stated to have instigated Amardeep Singh against the second respondent and also to have abused her. The second respondent has also alleged that all the them used to beat her and wanted to kill her. The complainant Harpreet Kaur has also alleged that her Stri Dhana articles namely, furnitures are with her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw, which they have kept in their house at Uttar Pradesh, whereas the ornaments are with Harpreet Kaur, while the cash is with the husband Amardeep Singh. According to the complainant, she was turned out from the house, and on the asking of her father, they refused to return the dowry articles.

The petitioners claim that the marriage took place at Chandigarh and the gifts were allegedly given to the accused at Chandigarh, that the second respondent, complainant and her husband lastly lived at Chandigarh, that the misappropriation and cruelty were allegedly committed at Chandigarh, that the alleged dowry articles were also retained and required to be returned at Chandigarh, since there was no stipulation to return the said articles at any other place than the marital home which was at Chandigarh and, therefore, the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction at all.

The petitioners also claim that there are no specific allegations of cruelty except the vague statement that the petitioners used to harass the second respondent and instigate her husband against her, and that she was beaten. They also claim that the articles allegedly given will be normally with the husband and wife and not with the other petitioners who were residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioners claim that no case is made out against these petitioners either under Section 498A or Section 406 IPC.

The SI/SHO of Police Station Sadar, Tohana has filed reply to Cr. M. No. 15872M/96 on behalf of the State of Haryana, wherein it has been alleged that the chargesheet was presented by the police, that the charges have also been framed against the accused by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana, and the case is fixed for recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the FIR. The State has admitted that the marriage between the second respondentHarpreet Kaur and Amardeep Singh was performed at Chandigarh and both of them were living at Chandigarh. But the State claims that Amarpreet Kaur also was staying at Chandigarh and used to taunt the second respondent complainant. The State has alleged that there is sufficient evidence to show that the dowry articles and gifts were entrusted to the petitioners at Tohana.

The second respondentcomplainant has alleged in her reply to Cr. Misc. No. 15872M of 1996 that the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the FIR for the same reasons alleged by the State. She has also stated that her marriage with Amardeep Singh was performed at Chandigarh in a hotel and that she and Amardeep Sigh were residing at Chandigarh. But she has stated that Amarpreet Kaur was also staying with them at Chandigarh. The second respondent has also alleged that though the marriage was solemnized in a hotel at Chandigarh, all the other ceremonies had taken place at Tohana, and the articles were entrusted to the accused at Tohana. She has also alleged that as long as she was staying at Chandigarh with her husband, she was subjected to harassment and tortured. No separate counter was filed by the respondents to Cr. M. No. 18620M of 1996.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

The main objection of the respondents is that chargesheet has been filed in this case, charges have also been framed, that the case is fixed for the evidence of the prosecution before the trial court and, therefore, this Court shall not in the exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. quash the FIR or the subsequent proceedings. They place reliance upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and others, AIR 1961 SC 1260. This decision certainly goes to support this contention of the respondents that once the chargesheet is filed and the charges have been framed, this Court should discipline itself and refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. It is admitted by the petitioners that the chargesheet has been filed and the Court has also framed charges on 7.8.1996, fixing the case for prosecution evidence. Therefore, when the trial Court has aplied its mind and framed charges against the petitioners, this Court will not normally, under the exercise of its powers u/s 482 C. P.C., quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings and leave it to the accused, if they are aggrieved, to question the framing of the charges by filing a revision petition.

Therefore, under these circumstances, normally this Court will not go into even the question whether the reading of the FIR discloses grounds for proceeding against the petitioners for the alleged offences mentioned therein or not, for finding out whether the FIR should be quashed.

But the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage between the second respondentcomplainant and Amardeep Singh had admittedly taken place at Chandigarh, that they admittedly lived together at Chandigarh, whereas the other petitioners live in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He also contends that the dowry articles were handed over, even if true, at Chandigarh and that these articles are expected to be returned only at the marital home of second petitioner and her husband at Chandigarh only. He also points out that the cruelty was also allegedly meted out at Chandigarh. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and proceed with the same and, therefore, despite the fact that the chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed by the Court, this Court can still quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings since it goes to the root of the matter. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in Tarsem Singh and others v. Amrit Kaur, 1995(3) All Instant Judgments 272. In that case, the Court found that the wife had demanded back the dowry in District Amritsar, that she was turned out from her house in Amritsar District, and therefore, the offences, if any, were committed only in District Amritsar and, so the Court at Batala in District Gurdaspur, where the wife was staying with her parents, had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. So holding, the complaint and the summoning order were quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of this Court in A.K. Balakrishnan v. M/s. Bhartiya Cutler Hammer Ltd., 1988(1) RCR 299 in support of his contention that the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. That was a case where the petitioner before the High Court allegedly misappropriated certain amount of money at Madras while working as a Senior Accountant of the respondentcompany. There was no evidence that amounts were to be accounted for at Faridabad, nor did the Court find to that effect. In such circumstances, this Court quashed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

But the second respondentcomplainant contends that although the marriage was performed in a hotel at Chandigarh, all other ceremonies and the handing over of the dowry articles took place at Tohana and, therefore, the Court at Tohana has jurisdiction. Though there is allegation to that effect in the reply filed by the second respondent, this Court is not to be guided by the allegations in the reply to this petition or any document or evidence now placed before this Court only. On the contrary, this Court will have to look into the complaint only to find out whether there is any such allegation. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is no such allegation that the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused persons at Tohana. The complaint is silent with regard to this aspect though there is specific mention that certain articles were entrusted to the accused/petitioners herein. Therefore, this Court cannot, on the basis of the allegations now made in the reply, hold that dowry articles were delivered to the petitioners at Tohana.

Similarly, the complaint does not specifically say that the demand for the return of the dowry articles was made at Tohana or that there was an agreement between the parties that the dowry articles should be returned at Tohana. The dowry articles will normally be with the husband. In this case, the second respondentcomplainant and her husband admittedly lived at Chandigarh, whereas the parentsinlaw of the complainant lived in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioners, the sisterinlaw of the complainantAmarpreet Kaur has also been living only in Uttar Pradesh. Even the complainant has stated in her reply that so long as she and her husband lived at Chandigarh, her sisterinlawAmarpreet Kaur also lived with them. Therefore, it is not as if any of the petitioners lived at Tohana. So we find that while the husband of the complainant is living at Chandigarh, her parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw are living in Uttar Pradesh. In such circumstances, the demand to return the articles of dowry cannot be said to have been made at Tohana. The relevant portion of the allegation in the complaint is as follows :

"My Istridhan furniture is with my fatherinlaw Rajinder Singh and motherinlaw Hamir Kaur which they have kept in their house in U.P. Ornaments are with my Nanad (sister of husband). The cash amount is with my husband. They turned out me in three clothes from the house. On asking by my father they refused to return the dowry articles, and myself and my father came back emptyhanded."

These allegations show as if the demand for the return of dowry articles was made at the place of the residence of the petitioners and not at Tohana. Otherwise, the complainant would not have stated that they returned back emptyhanded.

There is no allegation that the dowry articles are expected to be returned at Tohana. No agreement to that effect is alleged. Simply because the wife lives within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tohana, it cannot be stated that the dowry articles were expected or required to be returned at Tohana.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I find that the complaint does not show that any part of the cause of action with regard to the offence u/s 406 IPC arose within the territorial limits of the Court at Tohana.

So far as cruelty is concerned, the allegations in the complaint read as if the complainant was treated cruelly at Chandigarh only. It has not been stated that the petitioners came to Tohana and illtreated her. Therefore, it cannot be stated that this alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tohana.

Therefore, it is evident that the reading of the complaint does not show that the petitioners committed these alleged offences within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tohana and, therefore, the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the FIR. The question is whether on this ground, the FIR pending before the Court at Tohana could be quashed even after the filing of the chargesheet and also the framing to the charges by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) RCR 123 held that the High Court is not justified in invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR except in rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. Therefore, when there are compelling circumstances, this Court can certainly invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. I have already found that the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged. If the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, there is no use of allowing the proceedings to continue since the Court at Tohana cannot convict the accused ultimately even if the charges against the accused petitioners are proved. Therefore, in these circumstances, I find that there is no use of allowing the FIR to continue as it will be a sheer waste of time and unnecessary expenditure. Therefore, the FIR and the consequential proceedings will have to be quashed.

In the result, both these petitions are allowed and the FIR impugned in these petitions and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana is quashed.