SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shri. Raghubir Chandra vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3249 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. RAGHUBIR CHANDRA
S/O. BIDHU BHUSHAN CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

2. SMT. SUSMITA RAGHUBIR CHANDRA
W/O. RAGHUBIR CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

3. SHRI. ALANKAR RAGHUBIR CHANDRA
S/O. RAGHUBIR CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D-3/F2,
MANGALAM APARTMENTS,
DILSHAD COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110 095. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: H.S. RUKKOJI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF BUILDING,
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560029.

2. MRS. AVANTIKA ALANKAR CHANDRA
W/O ALANKAR RAGHUBIR CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
2

RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1B,
100 FEET MAIN ROAD,
B.T.M. 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 068. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT: NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1
SRI: RAJASHEKAR B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR DATED 11.11.2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE IN CRIME NO.234/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE 6TH A.C.M.M.,
COURT, BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE ‘A’.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered

against them by the respondent No.1 -Police in Crime

No.234/2017 for the offences punishable under section 498A

read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for

respondent No.1.

3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two

fold contentions.

Firstly, respondent No.1 -Suddaguntepalya police have no

territorial jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate into

the matter. The marriage between the respondent No.2 and

petitioner No.3 was performed in Nagpur. The parties were

residing in Delhi. The petitioners are the permanent residents of

New Delhi. The offences are alleged to have taken place at

Delhi. No part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of

Suddaguntepalya Police Station. Therefore, in view of section

177 of Cr.P.C., registration of the case and consequent

investigation by the Suddaguntepalya Police Station is without

jurisdiction.

Secondly, the registration of FIR and investigation

undertaken by the respondent No.1 -Police is in violation of the

guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Rajesh Sharma Ors. vs. State of U.P. 2017 SCC Online 821.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following

decisions:

4

1. Rajesh Sharma Ors. vs. State of U.P. Another
(2017 SCC Online SC 821)

2. Bhura Ram Others vs. State of Rajasthan Another
[(2008) 11 SCC 103]

3. Y.Abraham Ajith Others vs. Inspector of Police,
Chennai Another [(2004) 8 SCC 100]

4. Pandurang Katti Another vs. State of Karnataka
Another (MANU/KA/0381/2005)

4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2

contends that part of cause of action has arisen within the limits

of Suddaguntepalya Police Station. Respondent No.2 and

petitioner No.3 were residing in Bengaluru and during this

period, respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and

cruelty. There are specific allegations that a demand was made

when she was in Bengaluru and therefore, it is within the

jurisdiction of respondent No.1 -Police to register the case as

well as to investigate into the alleged offences.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed

reliance on the following decisions:

5

1. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A.Ravishankar
Prasad Others, Crl.A.No.1082-85 of 2009 D.D.
15.05.2009, (2009) 6 SCC 351;

2. State of Haryana Others vs. Ch-Bhajan Lal Others,
Civil Appeal No.5412 of 2009 D.D.21.11.1990, AIR
1992 SC 604.

5. Considered the submissions. Perused the records

and the decisions relied on by the parties.

Coming to the first contention urged by the petitioners, it

is pertinent to refer to the allegations made in the complaint. In

the complaint, respondent No.2 has given her address at

Bengaluru. She has specifically stated that, at the time of

contracting marriage, she was working in a premier MNC at

Bengaluru and marriage was fixed with accused No.1 who was

then working as a Director of a MNC at Bengaluru. Further in

para 8, it is stated that within a month from the date of marriage

on 24.12.2016, accused Nos.1 to 3 conveyed their financial

demand to her for Rs.10,00,000/- to buy a new car in a written

format in the form of a Whatsapp message in Bengaluru. Further

she has stated that while staying in Bengaluru, she was treated

with utmost cruelty for not honouring their financial demands. In
6

para 11, she has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 had driven her

crazy by sending Whatsapp messages at her shared

accommodation at Bengaluru in a span of 60 days.

6. Thus there are overwhelming circumstances to hold

that part of cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru. If for any

reason, in the course of investigation, the respondent No.1-

Police come to the conclusion that the offences have taken place

beyond the limits of the respondent No.1-Police, it is always

open for respondent No.1 -Police to transfer the investigation to

the jurisdictional Police. Therefore, on this score, the FIR cannot

be quashed.

7. In so far as the directions issued by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case, the learned counsel has

referred to directions at clause i(a) and i(e) of para 18 of

judgment, which read us under:-

i(a) In every district one or more Family
Welfare Committees be constituted by the
District Legal Services Authorities preferably
comprising of three members. The
constitution and working of such committees
7

may be reviewed from time to time and at
least once in a year by the District and
Sessions Judge of the district who is also the
Chairman of the District Legal Services
Authority.

i(e) Report of such committee be given to
the Authority by whom the complaint is

referred to it latest within one month from the
date of receipt of complaint.

These directions do not debar the police from registering the

FIR. On the other hand, clause (d) of para 18 of judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case reads as

follows:

“Every complaint under Section 498A received
by the police or the Magistrate be referred to
and looked into by such committee. Such
committee may have interaction with the
parties personally or by means of telephone or
any other mode of communication including
electronic communication.”

8. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that Family

Welfare Committees are not constituted so far by the District

Legal Services Authorities in the Districts as per the directions of
8

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, in the instant case,

the matter is at the stage of registration of the FIR. There is no

embargo on the respondent No.1 -Police to register the FIR.

9. Therefore, registration of FIR cannot be stated to be

in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case. It is for the respondent No.1-

State to comply with the above directions and proceed in the

matter as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh

Sharma’s case. Therefore, on the purported grounds, the FIR

registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed as sought

for in the petition. Petition fails.

Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss

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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation