IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision:13.03.2020
VARUN KAMBOJ … Petitioner
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present: Mr. Rajpal Singh Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, and
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
The petitioner, who is the husband of complainant-respondent
No.2, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
the FIR No.199 dated 15.05.2018 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406,
498-A, 506 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna
Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present
FIR has been registered mainly for the reason that there are allegations
against the petitioner that he was maintaining extra marital relation with
some other lady, however, during investigation, the police did not find any
substance in those allegations. Similarly, a plot (vasika No.298, dated
04.03.2013) was purchased by the petitioner from his own funds and it is the
1 of 3
22-03-2020 23:07:54 :::
petitioner who has transferred Rs.8 lacs in the account of the complainant on
18.02.2013 and besides this, he had arranged an amount of Rs.10 lacs from
his own resources, as he had taken this money from his brothers and father.
Thus, it is the petitioner, who had purchased the said plot from his funds and
there was no contribution from the complainant or her parents. He has
further argued that the present FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground of
jurisdiction as well. The cause of action, if any, has arisen in the territorial
jurisdiction of Faridabad where the parties had lastly resided together,
whereas the present FIR has been registered at Yamuna Nagar. Thus, for this
reason, the FIR needs to be quashed. There is no evidence as regard the
offence under Section 406 IPC.
Mr. Sammi, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent
No.2 has pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner
in the FIR. The petitioner had been harassing the complainant on one pretext
or the other. The couple is blessed with two daughters from the wedlock but
the petitioner is not extending any help to the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The argument of counsel for the petitioner as regard jurisdiction
point has been discussed in the judgment Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
Rupali Devi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others-2019(2)
RCR(Criminal) 795, wherein it has been held that the place where the wife
takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on
account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, have
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. Thus, the complainant is at liberty to
put the criminal machinery in motion by taking shelter of any place. This
2 of 3
22-03-2020 23:07:55 :::
Court finds that there are serious/specific allegations against the petitioner.
Even if the petitioner is found innocent during investigation for the
allegation that he was maintaining extra marital relations with some other
lady is no ground to interfere in the FIR.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and the petitioner
is required to face trial and the prosecution would be at liberty to lead their
(HARI PAL VERMA)
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
22-03-2020 23:07:55 :::