Krishan Lal vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Petitioners (1) Krishan Lal son of Preet Singh, (2) Lachhmi wife of Preet Singh, and (3) Preet Singh have filled this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 175 of 196 dated 6.7.1996 under Section 498A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Samalkha district Panipat and the consequential proceedings.

The basis of the FIR is the statement of Smt. Kamlesh wife of first petitionerKrishan Lal. The material allegations found in the FIR (annexure P1) are as follows :

The complainantKamlesh was married on 10.12.1991 with the first petitioner Krishan Lal, a resident of village Gangesar in district Sonepat, Her inlaws were not happy with the dowry given by her father, and they started to harass the complainant a few days affect her marriage. Her husbandKrishan lal, fatherinlaw Preet Singh and motherinlaw Lachhmi started harassing/beating her demanding fridge, motor cycle and golden ring etc. On her writing to her father about all this in June 1993, her father came to Gangesar and made the petitioners understand. After some time they again started repeating the same. The petitioner gave birth to a daughter on 25.12.1993 at Samalkha. Fourfive months later, petitionerKrishan Lal came and took her to village Gangesar. But after some time the petitionersherein beat her demanding dowry. They said that either dowry articles demanded by them should be brought or they would kill her. On 3.9.1995 her husband (first petitioner) left her at Samalkha saying that if she was to come to Gangesar, she would have to come with dowry. On 9.6.1996 the complainant''s husband and his uncle came and took her to Gangesar stating that nothing would happen in future, but just after reaching Gangesar they started beating her and kept the complainant and her daughter without food demanding dowry. On 10.6.1996 the complainant''s husband again left her at Samalkha and said that if she came without dowry then they would kill her.

The petitioners urge that all of them are residents of village Gangesar in district Sonepat, that the complainant cohabited with the first petitioner in the said village, that the alleged cruelty also took place in the said village and, therefore, the police at Panipat district have no jurisdiction to register the FIR. According to the petitioners, the petitioners 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the complainant or her dowry and that they are living separately. The petitioners urge that the complainant could not get along with her husband and, therefore, her husband, the first petitioner has filed petition for divorce against her which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. According to the petitioners the said Court tried to settle the matter between them but the complainant declined to settle the matter. According to the petitioners, the present FIR is only a counterblast to the petition for divorce filed by the firstpetitioner. The petitioners claim that they never met the complainant in her villageAtta and, therefore, there is no question of causing any cruelty to her in the said village. The petitioners also urge that no specific instance of cruelty with date has been given in the complaint. The petitioners also further urge that no specific instance of any demand for dowry, or entrustment or demanding back the dowry articles by the complainant or the refusal to do so by the petitioners has been made in the complaint. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC have not been made out.

The Station House Officer of Police Station, Samalkha has filed reply on behalf of the only respondentState and has urged as follows :

The chargesheet has already been sent to the Court and the case was fixed on 4.2.1997 for appearance of the accused. The dowry articles were handed over in village Atta and have to be returned at the said place. There are specific allegations against the petitioners regarding the maltreatment and demand of dowry. There are specific allegations supported by evidence to prove the charges as against the petitioners.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

In view of the statement by the respondent that the chargesheet has already been filed into Court on 4.11.1996, this Court under normal circumstances will not go into the question whether case is made out against the petitioners on a reading of the FIR. and then proceed to quash the proceedings pending before the trial Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But this is a case where the petitioners urge that the alleged cruelty was committed in village Gangesar, that there are no specific allegations about the entrustment of the any specific article of dowry to any specific person, that there is no allegation in the FIR that the complainant demanded back the dowry articles from the petitioners herein or that they refused to do so and, therefore, police in the district of Panipat and the Court in the said District have jurisdiction to entertain the FIR. Therefore, if the police at Samalkha and the Magistrate''s Court at Panipat which are situate within the District Panipat have no jurisdiction to entertain this matter, then the lack of jurisdiction will affect the power of the police to investigate into the FIR, and of the Court to take cognizance of these offences. In such circumstances this Court can still exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as the Court at Panipat will have ultimately no jurisdiction to pass any order in this matter.

Therefore, in this background, I will proceed to discuss the allegations in the FIR, though, I will not go into the question whether these allegations are true or not and whether the allegations make out an offence against the petitioners herein or not. I will proceed on the basis that these allegations are true and make out grounds for proceeding against the petitioners, but will examine the allegations to find out whether the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat have jurisdiction.

I will firstly take up the allegations with regard to the first petitionerKrishan Lal, who is husband of the complainantKamlesh. From the allegations in the complaint, it is seen that they have been living at Gangesar, the village of the petitioners. The allegations also read that she was treated cruelly in the said village by the petitioners. There is a specific allegations against the firstpetitioner that on 3.9.1995 the firstpetitioner left the complainant at Samalkha, which is in district Panipat, and said that if the complainant came to Gangesar then she will have to come with dowry. There is also allegation that she was brought back to Gangesar but again on 10.6.1996 her husband left her at Samalkha stating that if she came without dowry then they would kill her. Though there may be a question as to whether the mere act of leaving the complainant at her parents'' house at Samalkha will amount to an act of cruelty under Section 498A IPC or not, the allegation that the firstpetitioner also told her that if she came without dowry she will be killed amounts to an act of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, so far as the firstpetitioner Krishan Lal is concerned the police at Samalkha will have jurisdiction to investigate into and the Court at Panipat will have jurisdiction to try the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

But so far as the second petitioner Lachhmi and third petitioner Preet Singh are concerned the allegation in the FIR regarding cruelty is that they also beat and demanded certain articles from the complainant. A reading of the FIR shows that these alleged acts attributed to them were committed at Gangesar. It is not stated that they also went to the village Samalkha, where the complainant lives, and treated her cruelly. Therefore, so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned the police at Samalkha has no jurisdiction to investigate the FIR against them, and the Court at Panipat has also no jurisdiction to try the offences. The acts of the firstpetitioner taking the complainant to Samalkha leaving her there and stating that she will be killed if she did not bring dowry are the individual actions of the first petitioner. It is not specifically alleged that he did so in furtherance of the common intention of all the petitioners, and the allegations in the FIR do not also show that these acts of the 1st petitioner are part of the same transaction. Therefore, so far as the alleged cruelty and the threatening are concerned, it is clear that no part of the said offences are stated to have been committed by the petitioners 2 and 3 within the jurisdiction of the Police Station of Samalkha or the Court at Panipat. Therefore, the police will have no jurisdiction either to investigate the FIR and the Court will have no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 498A IPC or 506 IPC as against the petitioners 2 and 3.

As pointed out already the contention of the petitioners is that so far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned there are no allegations in the complaint that any specific item of article was entrusted to any of the petitioners or that there was a demand by the complainant for the return of the same, or that the petitioners refused to do so and, therefore, no offence is made out against them under Section 406IPC. But I will not go into this question, in view of the fact that chargesheet has already been filed into Court.

But, on a reading of the FIR I find that there is no specific allegation that any item of dowry was entrusted to the petitioners at Samalkha and within the jurisdiction of the Court at Panipat. Similarly there is no specific allegation that there was any demand by the complainant made to the petitioners to return the dowry articles within the jurisdiction of the police at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat or that they refused to do so within the said jurisdiction. In fact there are no specific allegations at all regarding the entrustment of any item of dowry or the demand for return of the same or the refusal by the petitioners. In such circumstances, petitioners cannot be stated to have commited any offence under Section 406 IPC within the jurisdiction of the Police Station at Samalkha and the Court at Panipat. Therefore, the police at Samalkha has no jurisdiction to investigate and the Court at Panipat has no jurisdiction to try this offence as against the petitioners. So the FIR in so far as it relates the offence under Section 406 IPC and the further proceedings will have to be quashed, since the Court at Panipat cannot punish the petitioners for this offence ultimately.

In the result, the petition is allowed in so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, and the FIR impugned in this petition and the consequential proceedings as against them are quashed.

But, so far as the first petitionerKrishan Lal is concerned, the FIR and the consequential proceedings as against him are quashed in respect of the offence under Section 406IPC only. But, this petition is dismissed with regard to the offences under Section 498A and 506 IPC in so far as the firstpetitioner Krishan Lal is concerned.