* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 25th September, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 1683/2018
NAVED HAIDER KAJMI ORS ….. Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Arvind K. Srivastava and Mr.
Arvind Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR ….. Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
Standing Counsel for State with ASI
Devinder Singh, PS Aman Vihar.
Mr. Ravinder Narwal, Advocate for
respondent No.2 with respondent
No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.1218/2017 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Aman Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Respondent No. 2 lodged the above noted FIR against the petitioners
stating that she was married to the petitioner No.1 on 28 th March, 2015
according to Muslim Rites and Customs. In her marriage parents and
relations spent money beyond their capacity spending ₹25 lakhs on
jewellery, furniture, clothes, utensils and other utility items etc. and also
gave one Wagon-R car. On the next day of marriage, her sister-in-law
Seema stated that the dowry articles were less and they were getting more
dowry from another alliance and atleast a car worth ₹10 lakhs ought to have
been given and that she had just got an iron box for them. Her mother-in-
law and other family members also harassed her mentally and physically and
W.P.(CRL) 1683/2018 Page 1 of 4
tried to kill her by burning. The complainant thought that probably things
would settle down however, the in-laws continued threatening her and stated
that they would get her divorced and Naved would be re-married. Her
mother-in-law stated that 15 tolas gold was less and she needed cash of ₹10
lakhs. The complainant was beaten when she was on the family way as
well. After she gave birth to the child she was also abused about the looks
of the child. Her sister-in-law used to instigate her mother-in-law, father-in-
law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband who used to in turn beat
her and assault her with fists and leg blows. She alleged that her in-laws
used to beat her however, to save her matrimonial life she continued to
tolerate all this.
3. Harassment to the complainant continued and on 19th April, 2016 her
father had to sell his property to fulfill the demand of her in-laws and pay a
sum of ₹5 lakhs to her husband and in-laws. Even on her brother’s wedding
her husband demanded ₹1 lakh and a gold chain of 20 grams. When she
refused, her husband assaulted her, for which a complaint was lodged at PS
Aman Vihar on 28th May, 2016. On 10th June, 2016 her husband came with
certain elders and assured that they will keep the complainant properly and
thus she was sent to the matrimonial home. Again on 22 nd September, 2016
her husband assaulted her, her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and
did lot of drama. On the night of 22 nd September, 2016 when her parents
and brother came to her in-laws house, seeing her condition a call to PCR
was made however, police officials forcefully got a settlement done. On
23rd September, 2016 complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home
with the child in the clothes she was wearing. Thus, the complainant
demanded action and restoration of all her streedhan articles.
W.P.(CRL) 1683/2018 Page 2 of 4
4. A status report has been filed. As per the status report on receipt of
the above noted complaint parties entered into a settlement before the CAW
Cell on 29th March, 2017 whereafter the complainant joined the company of
the petitioner. However, on 1st August, 2017 the complainant again
approached the office of the ACP, CAW Cell alleging that she stayed in her
matrimonial home for four months but just after one month her husband
again made a demand of Scorpio car and ₹5 lakhs and started harassing and
torturing her to fulfil the demands. Hence after reopening of the complaint,
above noted FIR was registered.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that after
registration of FIR statement of the complainant was recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. pursuant whereof Sections 352/506/354/509 IPC have also been
invoked. He states that charge sheet has been filed against the four
petitioners without arrest wherein cognizance has been taken by the learned
Trial Court.
6. The three arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are that this
Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason
the matrimonial home of the complainant was in Meerut and offence, if any,
was allegedly committed at Meerut. Secondly, the complainant filed a
complaint before the Meerut Police and thus second complaint at PS Aman
Vihar, CAW Cell, North West District, was not maintainable and thirdly that
having condoned the offence and joined the company the complaint could
not have been reopened the complaint and got the FIR registered and charge
sheet filed thereon. Learned counsel further contends that during the
proceedings before the CAW Cell, parties entered into a settlement on 29th
March, 2017 whereafter the complaint was closed at the request of
W.P.(CRL) 1683/2018 Page 3 of 4
respondent No. 2 and she joined the company of petitioner No. 1. There
being no harassment by other petitioners, that is, petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 and
the only allegations being against petitioner No.1 FIR could not have been
registered against them and no charge sheet filed.
7. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with
regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned admittedly
respondent No.2 is presently residing at Delhi and is accounting for all her
streedhan items in Delhi, thus in view of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. this Court
has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint/charge sheet. As regards
filing of an earlier complaint at PS Meertu no document has been filed by
the petitioners to show the contents of the said complaint except Annexure-
P2 to the present petition dated 23rd September, 2016 which is signed by all
the parties stating that parties with the help of family friends have reconciled
their disputes and Naved and complainant would reside together at the
matrimonial home. The third contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners stating that the complaint could not be reopened also deserves to
be rejected. If in the course of reconciliation proceedings parties try to
reconcile their differences and make an attempt to live together but do not
succeed that does not condone the offences alleged by the complainant. The
investigating agency was within its right to reopen the complaint and lodge
the FIR and file the charge sheet on investigation.
8. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
‘vn’
W.P.(CRL) 1683/2018 Page 4 of 4
