Hari Prem Rastogi vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

G.S. Chahal, J.

Hari Prem Rastogi and his wife Pushpa Lata Rastogi, by means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of FIR of 73 of 1993 registered at Police Station West, District UT Chandigarh Annexure P1 on April 28, 1993 and all proceedings resulting therefrom.

The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of an application moved by Smt. Mamta Rastogi. The facts stated in the FIR may be briefly stated :

The marriage of Mamta Rastogi was solemnised with Navneet Kumar Rastogi on December 11, 1989 as per Hindu rites. Hari Prem Rastogi is an uncle of Navneet Kumar Rastogi. He and his wife and some other relations of Navneet Kumar Rastogi were not happy with the dowry given at the time of her marriage as they had higher expectations. When complainant''s husband visited Chandigarh, she narrated the entire incident to her parents and her father made her husband understand and she was sent back. However, at Meerut, she was asked to return all the luggage which had been given by her husband''s family and these articles were forcibly snatched from her. She was then compelled to write a letter to her father that she may be trained in a course of stitching. On a visit to herinlaws house, her father having learnt about the maltreatment, tried to prevail upon the inlaws of the complainant to treat her properly. She was not allowed to write a letter to her parents and her father wrote a letter to the Meerut police who came to make inquiries, but the police was old a lie that the complainant did not want to have any links with her parents. Complainant''s motherinlaw and uncle inlaw snatched all the istridhan and asked her husband to live separately so as to keep the police away from the family affairs. It, however, became impossible for her to stay with her husband. On December 25, 1990 her husband brought her to Chandigarh with a promise that he would take her back and that she should also learn household work. On January 31, 1991 complainant''s father took her to Meerut where she was compelled to sign blank papers. Subsequently she learnt that these documents were with regard to obtaining of divorce. On only 25, 1991, the Family Court granted divorce and she started living separately. Subsequently. however. her husband came to Chandigarh and told her that a lawyer will look after their work permanently. He, however, asked either to bring Rs. 50,000/ from her parents or to live with him as a mistress. She, however, did not think it proper to tell this to her patents. The uncle of her husband came to Chandigarh and took Rs. 4,000/ from her father telling him that she was sick. He also tendered advice to her husband to take mosey slowly otherwise she shall tell her father about the divorce.

The offence under section 498A, if any. is alleged to have been committed at Meerut and no case can be tried at Chandigarh for that offence. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, an offence has to be tried at the place where it is committed. Section 498A does not fall under any exception given in the Code. The proceedings under section 498A are, thus, quashed on this short ground. The complainant shall have the right to seek her remedies in the proper forum.

No specific allegation has been made about the entrustment of articles to any of the petitioners at the time of marriage. It being the specific allegation that her Istridhan had been snatched by the uncle of her husband and the motherinlaw, will indicate that the articles of dowry were in the possession of the complainant. Whatever criminal offence may have been committed with respect to this snatching, no offence under section 406 can be held to have been committed. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Hari Prem Rastogi had taken Rs. 4,000/ from the father of the complainant on the pretext of his being sick. If it was a fact, there was civil remedy available. At any rate, it cannot be described to be a part of the dowry demanded and received by the petitioners.

I hereby accept the petition and quash the impugned FIR and the charge. This petition is disposed of.