Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 for quashing the case registered against them vide FIR No. 76 of 1987 for the offence under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code, besides under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Julana, at the instance of Mst Naraini Devi wife of Suresh Kumar petitioner.

Mst. Naraini Devi was married with Suresh Kumar petitioner on 10th May, 1983 at Julana Mandi, district Jind. She cohabited with her husband at Delhi for about nine months. Her father allegedly gave dowry to her in marriage according to his capacity. Shri Laxmi Narain is her fatherinlaw while Smt. Bharpati Devi is her motherinlaw. Dinesh Kumar petitioner No. 4 is the brother of her husband. Her inlaws also gifted some jewellery and ornaments on the occasion of her marriage. On subsequent occasions also, her father gave some more gifts to his daughter which she has kept in her husband''s house at Delhi. She lodged the First Information Report alleging that the accusedpetitioners are greedy persons and her parentsinlaw started saying her from the very first day of her marriage that she had brought less dowry. The accused used to pick up quarrel with her and used to give her beatings. She was not provided with meals and subjected to mental and physical torture on several occasions. She was then turned out of her matrimonial home about 21/2 years prior to the lodging of the FIR while her jewellery and other articles were retained and misappropriated. She further alleged having tried to settle the matter with the intervention of the respectables, but the accused did not drop the demand for scooter and hard cash. In Annexure A1 she has mentioned the misappropriation of golden jewellery as under :

"1. Gold Ring 1

Gold Rings 4

Gold bangles 4

Jhumka 1 pair

Har 1

5a. Pandel 1

Sarees 15

Household articles valued Rs. 15,000/

Cash paid Rs. 25,000/

During investigation of the case, the police tried to arrest the petitioner which resulted in approaching them the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, for anticipatory bail, but their request was declined. Under these circumstances, the accused have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings, inter alia, contending that Mst. Naraini Devi (hereinafter referred to as the `complainant'') had also filed complaint, copy whereof is Annexure P1 before the Delhi Police (Crime against Women/anticipatory cell) New Delhi on 27th February, 1987, against her husband and parentsinlaw alleging maltreatment and harassment and that Police Station Julana or the Courts at Jind had no jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC, and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as all these offences allegedly took place in the area of Delhi. It was also maintained that allegations in the FIR regarding entrustment of articles of dowry or misappropriation of Istri Dhan are too vague to prove any prima facie case and that the delay of more than 2 years in lodging the complaint clearly shows that these proceedings were instituted in order to harass the petitioners. It was also contended that the misappropriation of Istri Dhan of the complainant by the petitioners was not even alleged in the complaint lodged with Delhi police.

In the written statement filed by the Superintendent of Police Jind, on behalf of the State of Haryana, the allegations of the complainant in the FIR were supported. It was also maintained that the Courts at Jind and Police Station Julana had jurisdiction to try, register and investigate the case, as the case may be, as the marriage of the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) took place at Julana and most of the Istri Dhan of the complainant was received by the accused at Julana.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, besides perusing the records.

According to her complaint she was maltreated by her husband and by the other accused at Delhi and that the demands for bringing more dowry was also made at Delhi. Thus, there is no escape but to conclude that the Courts at Jind, a District of Haryana State had no jurisdiction to try these offences. By no stretch of imagination, both these two offence can be treated as a continuing offences. There is no allegation of the complainant that the accused had made any demand for dowry before or at the time of her marriage. Thus, no part of cause of action took place in the area of Haryana State.

So far as the offence under Section 406, IPC, is concerned, it transpires that according to provisions of subsection (4) of Section 181, Cr.P.C., offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of peace can be tried by the Court where property was received or where the offence was committed Thus, apparently, as the gifts on the occasion of marriage given to Mst. Naraini Devi were obviously received by her parentsinlaw, it can be well said that the Courts at Jind had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The question then arises whether the allegations of the complainant regarding the misappropriation of Istri Dhan by the accusedpetitioners are well founded or not. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Mst. Naraini Devi had lodged a similar complaint, copy thereof is Annexure P1, with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime against women/antidowry cell) Delhi on 27th February, 1987. In the above referred complaint she had simply admitted the maltreatment at the hands of her parentsinlaw and her husband on the ground of having brought less dowry. It was further maintained that her husband refused to rehabilitate her unless she fetched Rs. 25,000/ and a scooter from her parents. It is further alleged that she left the house of her inlaws and went to her parents'' house when she learnt that her husband and inlaws were planning to kill her by strangulation. In the said complaint, it is nowhere alleged that she had left her ornaments and other valuables forming part of her Istri Dhan at the house of her inlaws while going to her parents'' house. Under these circumstances, her allegations in the FIR lodged on 5.8.1987 at Police Station Julana regarding misappropriation of her Istri Dhan by the accused clearly appears to be a move to harass her husband and inlaws. A perusal of FIR, copy whereof is Annexure P3, leaves no doubt that except for giving the details of her ornaments and clothes in Annexure A she had not alleged as to whom these clothes or ornaments were entrusted, what to say of giving details of the particular date on which she was maltreated by all the accused or any one of them. It is not even alleged by her that parentsinlaw or the brother of her husband were living jointly in the same house with her husband. In the body of the FIR or Annexure A she had not even given the details or particulars of the ornaments and the clothes. It is mentioned in the Annexure that Rs. 25,000/ were paid in cash, but there is no allegation in the FIR as to when this huge amount in cash was paid and to whom. Even if the investigating agency during the course of investigation records the supplementary statement of the complainant or that of her father in order to cover up these ambiguities, that will be of no consequence on the final fate of the case being an afterthought version.

For the foregoing reasons it appears that the present complaint was got registered by the complainant after 21/2 years of her deserting the house of her husband in order to harass him and his relations. Thus, in a way it can be well said that the complainant had tried to abuse the process of the Court in taking revenge from the accusedpetitioners by register this case after 21/2 years of the occurrence. Therefore, the First Information Report, Annexure P3, as well as the investigation proceedings are hereby ordered to be quashed by accepting this criminal miscellaneous.

JUDGMENT accordingly.