MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Sections 406/498A IPC – Territorial Jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR

DELHI HIGH COURT

Bench: JUSTICE D.K. Jain

RAJINDER SINGH

Vs.

STATE ANR. On 13 Oct 1998

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition underneath Section 482 of a Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as a Code) for quashing of FIR No.34/93, antiquated 23 Jan 1993, got purebred during P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by respondent No.2 herein-the wife, underneath Sections 406/498-A IPC, essentially on a drift that:(i) Delhi Police has no office to register a box and (ii) even holding a allegations in a censure on their face value, no box can be finished out underneath a pronounced Sections.

2. Rajinder Singh postulant and Smt. Satvinder Kaur-complainant, were married during Patiala(Punjab) on 9 Oct 1990. They lived together in Patiala and a daughter was innate on 19 Dec 1991 out of a wedlock. The marital life had apparently been unhappy, possibly since of direct for gifts from a petitioner’s side, as purported by a complainant or since of disfavour and some other reasons, as purported by a petitioner. Be that as it may, on 19 Jan 1992 during 3.40 PM a censure was lodged by a complainant-wife during P.S.Kotwali, Patiala(DD No.18) alleging: that after a birth of a womanlike child her in-laws had started badgering her and had beaten her many a time; on 18 Jan 1992 her father had stage adult her hermit during Delhi and had told him to take her divided for ever; when her hermit and father had come to enquire about her welfare, all members of her in-laws’ family misbehaved with them; snatched a child and threw her out of a house; she had come to surprise that she, her father and hermit had been threatened to be killed….. ‘Action be taken’. However, a same day during 8.20 PM another information(DD No.28) was given to a pronounced Police Station by a complainant with a ask not to take movement in DD 18 as due to involvement of some persons, a censure got diarised in a morning about hazard to her life, had been compromised and her father was holding her to Delhi along with some mentioned jewellery/gold items, garments etc; withdrawal rest of her articles during her in-laws’ house, and she was holding her child along for that usually she will be responsible; and she was going to Delhi as per her possess will yet any vigour from her father and brother. It seems that on 4 Mar 1992 a complainant wrote a minute to SHO, P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi alleging threats from a postulant and seeking protection. On 30 Apr 1992 a censure was lodged opposite a postulant in a Crime Against Women Cell, Delhi. It was on 23 Jan 1993 that a impugned FIR underneath Sections 406 and 498A IPC for a purported “occurrence antiquated 9 Dec 1990 during Patiala” was lodged during P.S.Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

3. On a camp of a FIR, military authorities during Delhi swung into movement and arrested a postulant on 4 Feb 1993 during Patiala; allegedly effected certain recoveries there and brought him to Delhi; constructed him before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who remanded him to legal control and eventually a postulant was lengthened on bail on 9 Feb 1993.

4. Under these resources a postulant filed a benefaction petition underneath Section 482 of a Code for quashing FIR No.34/93 on a belligerent that on a allegations in a complaint, that are fake and malafide, no partial of means of movement for review or conference of an corruption arose in Delhi, delay of investigations underneath it is an abuse of a routine of Court.

READ  Whether accused can be convicted U/S 307 of IPC in absence of Foundational facts?

5. The petition came adult for conference on 12 Oct 1993 and after conference warn for a parties, a Court took a perspective that “since a lapse of stridhan and accounting thereof is being sought in Delhi, a Courts during Delhi will have a office to try a case”. With these observations a petition was dismissed.

6. This sequence was challenged by a postulant in a Supreme Court. By order, antiquated 4 Apr 1995, a Supreme Court, watching that there was no row on a merits of a matter in a High Court’s order, antiquated 12 Oct 1993, per a concede arrived during between a parties on 19 Jan 1992, set aside a same, and remitted a matter for a uninformed care on a points lifted by a postulant in this petition.

7. we have listened Mr. Mohit Mathur, schooled warn for a postulant and Ms. Pinki Anand, schooled warn for a complainant.

8. It is submitted by schooled warn for a postulant that conjunction a SHO, P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi nor a Courts in Delhi had any territorial office to perform and examine a censure or to try a purported offences, for conjunction a purported acts of cruelty and maltreatment nor a delegation of skill or a prejudiced misappropriation or acclimatisation took place within a territorial office of a Courts in Delhi where a impugned FIR has been lodged, instead all a purported acts are staid to have taken place during Patiala. Laying importance on a censure filed by a complainant on 19 Jan 1992(DD 18) during Patiala, it is asserted that detached from a fact that in a pronounced censure there was no claim of direct of dowry, a claim of maltreatment was finished by a complainant usually during Patiala; all equipment of dowry/gifts were entrusted and returned during Patiala and a so called refusal to lapse a remaining articles was also during Patiala; these conjunction were returned nor compulsory to be returned during Delhi and, therefore, a registration of a FIR by a Delhi Police is yet jurisdiction. It is confirmed that after settling a disputes on 19 Jan 1992 during Patiala itself, vide DD 28, filing of a impugned FIR is an abuse of a routine of a Court. In support of a row that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction, faith is placed on a preference of this Court in Rohit Arora & Ors Vs. The State, 1996(3) AD Delhi 960, that supports a petitioner.

9. On a other palm schooled warn for a complainant has purported that after a matrimony during Patiala, a postulant used to revisit Delhi along with a complainant, where some income was given to him by a complainant’s hermit for squeeze of beds; during their stays during Delhi complainant withdrew income from her comment during Delhi and entrusted it to a postulant and as such corruption underneath Section 406 IPC was committed during Delhi and, therefore, Police during Delhi had a office to register and examine into a complaint.

10. The applicable orthodox supplies last a forum for enquiries and rapist trials are contained in Chapter XIII of a Code. Section 177 provides a typical ubiquitous rule. It prescribes that each corruption shall usually be enquired into and attempted by a Court within whose internal office it was committed. Sections 178 to 184 carve out certain exceptions to a ubiquitous order and yield for forum of conference in some graphic situations, that might be opposite from a ubiquitous rule. Section 177 is a ubiquitous order since Sections 178 to 184 are special provisions. A special sustenance has to get dominance over a ubiquitous rule. The allegations in a censure being of misappropriation and rapist crack of trust, one of such exceptions’ contained in Section 181(4), is applicable for a purpose of a benefaction case. It reads as follows:

READ  Tax Exemption Notification Should be Interpreted Strictly

“181(1)…………………………………….

181(4)Any corruption of rapist misappropriation or of rapist crack of trust might be inquired into or attempted by a Court within whose internal office a corruption was committed or any partial of a skill that is a theme to a corruption was perceived or retained, or was compulsory to be returned or accounted for, by a indicted person.”

11. It provides that an corruption of rapist crack of trust might be inquired into or attempted by a Court within whose internal office a corruption was committed or any partial of a skill that is a theme matter of a corruption was perceived or defended or was compulsory to be returned or accounted for by a indicted person.

12. In a present box a matrimony between a postulant and a complainant was solemnised during Patiala and it is clear from a element on record that a dowry equipment were entrusted during Patiala, yet in a counter-affidavit, now filed, it is purported that some money was handed over to a postulant during Delhi, yet there is no averment in a FIR to support delegation during Delhi. All what is staid is that she had a bank account, being Account No.BP 205, in State Bank of India, Mall Road, Patiala, in that she used to deposition her income warranted during Patiala, during a time she was withdrawal her in-laws residence during Patiala, her husband(petitioner) coerced her to pointer 3 cheques, that he got encashed from her pronounced bank comment and that detached from a compensate of Patiala, ” we also gave him a compensate of Delhi, while we was portion in K.V. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi”, roughly in all an volume of about Rs.23,000/- and peculiar She serve says(at page 3 of a complaint, that her father and hermit came to Patiala during a matrimonial home, her in-laws misbehaved with them and snatched her child, pushed her out of a house, she got her daughter behind with military assistance, left for Delhi “leaving all her ‘stridhan’ during Patiala with her in-laws, solely some garments and wearing jewellery”. There would so be no debate with courtesy to a doubt of office of a Court in a initial 3 situations, namely, (a) where a corruption is committed, (b) where any partial of a skill was perceived and (c) where such skill was retained. In all a 3 situations, a territorial office will positively be with a Patiala Courts. The fourth conditions envisaged in a Section is a place where a items, in courtesy to that rapist crack of trust is alleged, “were compulsory to be returned or accounted for”.

13. There is no gainsaying that a difference “was compulsory to be returned or accounted for” have no sequence with a parental home of a wife. The applicable cause would be possibly a chapter to that outcome between a parties possibly before or after a matrimony and in a deficiency of such a stipulation, a place where a equipment in doubt were kept in trust and a crack in honour thereof was committed.

14. From a afore-noted mount of a complainant it is clear that on a complainant’s possess display a delegation of some money or articles took place during Patiala and there is no averment whatever in any of a reports/complaints that any such object was to be returned during Delhi or any specific direct was finished by a complainant for a lapse of these articles during Delhi. Therefore, noticed from any angle, we am of a opinion that in a present box a equipment in question, if any, were compulsory to be returned or accounted for during Patiala, where these were allegedly entrusted to a postulant and, therefore, it will be a Police during Patiala that will have to examine a elect of purported corruption underneath Section 406 IPC.

READ  Legality of champerty or maintenance in India

15. As regards a doubt as to either a purported corruption underneath Section 498-A IPC could also be attempted during Patiala, it is clear from a initial censure antiquated 19 Jan 1992(DD 18) and from a impugned FIR that all acts of cruelty/beatings and threats seem as given and extended to a complainant during Patiala and therefore, underneath a normal order of procedural law, these have to be enquired into and attempted by a Court within whose internal office these were committed,i.e. Patiala. Besides, yet there is no claim of direct of dowry in any of a complaints/FIR, a purported corruption underneath Section 498-A IPC can be pronounced to be connected with a purported corruption underneath Section 406 IPC as to form a same transaction within a definition of Section 220 of a Code, it can also be attempted with Section 406 IPC.

16. Before parting, we might also understanding with a justification of schooled warn for a complainant to a outcome that a instances mentioned in a counter-affidavit in these record should be taken into care for last a doubt either a partial of a skill was entrusted to a postulant during Delhi. It is good staid that to establish either prima facie box of elect of cognizable corruption is finished out or not, it is a essence of a FIR that have to be seen and not a box set adult subsequently since a condition fashion to a derivation of an review underneath Section 157 of a Code is that a FIR contingency divulge prima facie elect of a cognizable corruption (See State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar,1982 Crl.L.J.819). Thus detached from a fact that in a complaint, antiquated 19 Jan 1992, a allegations now finished in a impugned FIR did not find mention, as already remarkable above, even what is staid in a impugned FIR does not tend to prove that a delegation of any skill was during Delhi. The averments in a counter-affidavit now set adult are self-indulgent improvements that can't be taken into consideration.

17. For a perspective we have taken above, it is nonessential to go into a doubt of a outcome of a concede purportedly arrived during between a parties on 19 Jan 1992 as per DD 28, that fundamentally purports to brand a equipment of personal outcome being private by her and those left with her in laws and to repel a defence for movement sought for in her same day’s censure in DD 18, lodged in a progressing partial of a day. Even differently a doubt either all equipment of stridhan were returned in terms of a allotment or not will have to be motionless after holding evidence, that might be constructed by both a sides. This can't be finished in record underneath Section 482 of a Code.

18. For a foregoing reasons FIR No.34/93, purebred during P.S. Paschim Vihar,New Delhi is quashed.

19. The petition stands likely of in a above terms.

1 thought on “Sections 406/498A IPC – Territorial Jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Oppurtunity to be given to both the Parties.
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation