DELHI HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE D.K. Jain
STATE ANR. On 13 Oct 1998
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.
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:
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.
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.