Ashok Beniwal @APPELLANT@Hash Hukma Ram

The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.267/2013 registered at the

Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners for the

offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the petitioner Ashok Beniwal was married to the respondent No.2 Smt. Rameshwari Devi in the year 1997 at Sadul Shahar

(Haryana). The respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner at the Police Station Gharsana on 03.07.2013 alleging inter alia that

wholesome dowry was given to the accused persons in the marriage. The complainant was also gifted 25 tolas of gold by the father of Ashok in the

marriage which is her streedhan. No sooner, the complainant arrived at the matrimonial home after the marriage, the accused started taunting her

owing to demand of dowry and also made comments on her short stature. Ashok Kumar used to taunt the complainant saying that he expected a

woman with better attributes and that she had not brought any significant dowry as well. Vicious comments were made on the dowry articles given by

the complainant’s maternals in the marriage. In the year 2000, the complainant was turned out with a threat that she should bring a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from her maternals for purchasing a plot in Hisar or else, she would not be allowed back in the matrimonial home. The complainant

approached her parents and apprised them about the demands being made the accused but they expressed inability to satisfy the same. The

complainant then approached her maternal uncle Shrichand and told him about the torture being inflicted upon her on which, Shrichand gave her some

money which she handed over the accused with which, the accused purchased a plot in Sector 16-17 in Haryana. For a few days after this demand

had been satisfied, the accused did not misbehave with the complainant but the foul activities of the accused resumed soon thereafter. Taunts and

insinuations were hurled regarding the complainant’s short stature, the clothes and other articles given by the complainant’s maternals in the

marriage and uncalled for and trivial mistakes were pointed out in the household chores being carried out by the complainant and she was harassed on

this count. These events became a routine part of her life. Ashok used to assault her frequently. The complainant bore a child from Ashok. She was

threatened that Ashok had secured a good job and that she would be turned out of the house and Ashok would remarry. The complainant continued to

bear the cruel behaviour of the accused looking to the future of her child. The complainant somehow procured a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her mother

and gave it to the accused. However, the accused continued to press her with with more demands imputing that her brother was having a flourishing

business and that more money should be brought from him. On 03.04.2013, the complainant was turned out of the house only in her clothes and she

was asked to bring 7-8 lac rupees cash from her brother for repaying some bank loan. The complainant’s relatives were unable to satisfy the

illegal greed of the accused upon which the complainant filed an application in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gharsana under the

provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The parties were called in the court on 05.06.2013 to explore the possibility of a settlement but the accused

did not respond to the pleas of the complainant and persisted with their demands and threatened that the accused Ashok would remarry. The

complainant demanded her Streedhan back from the accused but they bluntly refused. The Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gharsana awarded a sum

of Rs.12,000/per month as well as the residential rights to the complainant in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The complainant went

to reside in shared household i.e. House No.730 in Sector 16-17, Hisar but found it locked. Thereupon, the complainant went to her sister

Rukmani’s house who resides nearby. On inquiry, she was informed that the accused had illegally transferred the said house. The brother of the

complainant again tried to settle her back in matrimony by convening meeting at Gharsana on 28.06.2013 but the accused bluntly refused to accept the

proposal of settlement. Thereupon, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by the complainant at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagr.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report of the I.O. as per which, thorough investigation was conducted in the matter and the

offences have been found proved only against the petitioner Ashok Beniwal, being the husband of the complainant. During investigation, the

investigating officer has concluded that a Maruti Car bearing No.RJ-13-C-4171, which was allegedly given to the accused by way of dowry, continues

to be registered in the name of Hansraj (the brother of the first informant).

Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Kharlia representing the petitioners referred to the application moved by the respondent complainant under the provisions of

the Domestic Violence Act and urged that there is no allegation whatsoever therein regarding any act of cruelty or harassment meted out to the

complainant by any of the accused petitioners other than Ashok. He contended that the application under the Domestic Violence Act which was

moved well before lodging the impugned FIR, contains no aspersion that the accused petitioners ever harassed or humiliated Rameshwari on account

of demand of dowry. He further urged that after the marriage which took place in Sadul Shahar, Haryana, the spouses never resided together at any

place in Rajasthan so as to justify registration of the FIR at the Police Station Gharsana. In support of his contentions, Shri Kharlia relied upon a

Supreme Court decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 and urged

that allowing continuance of investigation of the impugned FIR at the Police Staton Gharsana is totally unjustified and hence, the same should be

quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant Shri Ranjeet Singh vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by

the petitioners’ counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the marriage of the complainant with Ashok was

solemnised at Sadul Shahar and no point of time, did the spouses reside together at Gharsana.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material

available on record.

Investigation changed numerous hands. In the earlier rounds, the I.O. concerned concluded that all the accused were responsible for the offences

alleged. However, in the final round of investigation, the following affirmative findings came to be noticed:-

“r¶rhâ€k iqfyl o c;kukr xokgku ls ik;k x;k fd ifjoknh;k jkesâ€ojh nsoh dh “kknh fnukad 18-1-1997 dks vkjksih vâ€kksd csuhoky ds lkFk gqbZ

FkhA “kknh ds ckn ls ifjoknh;k vius ifr ds lkFk fuokl djrh Fkh o vâ€kksd csuhoky gfj;k.kk d`f""k foâ€ofo|ky; esa nwj laosnu mi;ksx dsUnz ea lhfu;j

lkbZUVhfQd vlhLVsaV ds in ij ,oa ckn esa Hkwxksy o O;k[;krk dh uksdjh yxus ds dkj.k fglkj esa gh fdjk;s dk edku ysdj jgk Fkk ,oa ifjoknh;k vkjksih

ds lkFk gh fglkj esa fuokljr jgh Fkh blh

Øe esa vkjksih vâ€kksd csuhoky ,oa mldh iRuh Jhefr jkesâ€ojh edku u-a 7 ,pVh,e dkyksuh fglkj esa “kknh ds ckn ls o""kZ 2000 rd ,oa 2000 ls 2004

rd edku ua- 37 lSDVj ua- 15 , fglkj esa ,oa o""kZ 2005 ls flrEcj 2008 rd edku ua- 217 lSDVj ua- 15 , fglkj esa fdjk;s ds edku esa jgus ,oa o""kZ 2008

flrEcj ls 3-4-13 rd edku u-a 730 lSDVj ua- 16]17 fglkj es fuokljr jguk ik;k x;k gSAâ€​

…….

“eqdnek gktk esa Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ls pkyku vknsâ€k izkIr dj urhtk pkykuh tfj;s pktZâ€khV ua- 492 fnukad 19-10-14

vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkknl fo:) eqfYte vâ€kksd cSuhoky iq= vkseizdkâ€k tkfr tkV mez 46 lky fuoklh pqyhckxfM;ku iqfyl Fkkuk vkneiqj ftyk fglkj

gfj;k.kk gky vkneiqj Hkknjk jksM+ vkneiqj gfj;k.kk esa drk fd;k tk pqdk gSAâ€​

The most significant aspect noticeable from the above findings is that the alleged offending acts with the complainant took place at Hisar where she

resided after her marriage. Though it is true that in the application filed by Smt. Rameshwari against the petitioner Ashok Beniwal in the court of the

Judicial Magistrate Gharsana, there is no specific allegation regarding demand of dowry against the petitioners other than Ashok but this Court, cannot

loose sight of the fact that the application was in a proforma where the applicant has to merely select the options provided therein. On going through

the proforma filled by the applicant Rameshwari, it is apparent that she has indeed selected the option regarding demand of dowry in the application

form. Thus, no significance can be attached to the alleged omissions in the application. However, another fact noticeable from the said application is

that all the acts of domestic violence admittedly took place with Smt. Rameshwari Devi at Hisar.

Thus manifestly, the allegation levelled by the complainant that accused came to Gharsana and there also, they repeated and persisted with their

demands of dowry is a patent exaggeration created in order to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gharsana and nothing else. The

situation of the case at hand is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajit (supra) and hence, this Court feels

that allowing continuance of investigation of the FIR at the Police Station Gharsana is absolutely unjustified because no offence was admittedly

committed within its jurisdiction.

In view of these facts, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing the proceedings of the FIR to be continued at the Police

Station Gharsana is not justified because the Court where the report would be submitted would not be seized of the jurisdiction to try the matter.

Furthermore, since, from the investigation conducted thus far, the offences have only been found proved against the petitioner Ashok, no useful

purpose would be served by keeping the sword hanging on the remaining accused.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.267/2013

registered at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and the complete record thereof shall be forthwith transmitted to the S.P. Hisar.

Further proceedings of the impugned FIR shall be continued only against the petitioner Ashok Beniwal. The S.P. Hisar shall assign further

investigation of the matter to an appropriate officer of the police station having jurisdiction to investigate the same who shall investigate the FIR and

file conclusion before the court concerned expeditiously.