V.B.BHATIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Dr. V.B.Bhatia, Mrs. Rajni Bhatia, Mr. Puneet Bhatia, Ms. Gaayatri Malhotra, Mr. Arush Malhotra, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law respectively of complainant respondent no.2, Ms. Karishma Bhatia seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Petitioner No.1, arguing in person on behalf of all the petitioners, submitted that the complainant initially made a complaint dated 7th September, 2012 where there was no reference to any allegation of harassment or cruelty committed by the petitioners at Rohtak. However, after the petitioner received summons on 25th September, 2012 in pursuance to the complaint made by the complainant, he sent an e mail along with a hard copy to the Director General of Police, Panchkula that complaint need not be pursued at Panchkula as the marriage took place at Delhi. The complainant lived with the petitioner and other family members at Delhi. Neither the petitioner nor his son or any of his relatives ever visited the girl's house in Rohtak. The alleged demand of dowry and cruelty took place in Delhi and no part of cause of action arose in Rohtak, as such, complaint initiated at Rohtak be closed. Subsequently, he also went to Rohtak and raised the issue of jurisdiction before the CAW cell, Rohtak. Thereupon, opinion was sought from SHO, CAW Cell for further action in the matter. Opinion was given by Deputy District Attorney on 23rd October, 2012 that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Rohtak, the offence has been committed in the jurisdiction of Delhi. Thereupon, a letter was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, to Commissioner of Police, Delhi, stating therein that the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint of Karishma Bhatia is at Delhi and as such complaint along with investigation report are being forwarded for further necessary action. The petitioner was also informed about the transfer of investigation to Commissioner of Police, Delhi. However, on coming to know about this fact that the investigation has been transferred to Delhi, complainant approached the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak on 16th November, 2012 thereupon a noting was made by the Inspector General of Police "why don't they register a case in this matter and investigate, please send your report immediately". Instead of informing the Inspector General of Police that the investigation has already been transferred to Delhi Police, complaint was marked to SHO who on 16th November, 2012 registered FIR No. 855/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The petitioner was informed by the SHO regarding registration of FIR. Thereupon petitioner again met Deputy Superintendent of Police as to how the FIR has been registered. Then the file was called back from Delhi police. He also sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking copy of statement of the complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 855/2012 dated 16th November, 2012 was registered. Surprisingly, there was no fresh statement and the FIR was registered on the earlier complaint, on the basis of which investigation was sent to Delhi police, as such, there was gross misuse of power by the police. It was further submitted that no cause of action has arisen at Rohtak, hence Court at Rohtak has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Reliance was placed on Y .Abrahim Ajiyh v Inspector of Police,Chennai, 2004 8 SCC 100; Bhura Ram v State of Rajasthan, 2008 11 SCC 103; Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI, 2011 181 DLT 658; Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, 2007 11 SCC 335 & Niraj Trivedi v. State of Bihar,2008 3 JCC 1541

(3.) It was further submitted that averments made in the FIR contain vague allegations. There are absolutely no allegations attracting the provisions of Section 406 IPC. Moreover, although in the FIR there is a reference to three earlier complaints dated 7th September, 2012, 28th September, 2012 and 17th October, 2012, but the same does not form part of the charge sheet. Reliance was placed on Neelu Chopra v Bharti, 2009 10 SCC 184, Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 AIR(P&H) 2 and Ajay Mitra v. State of MP, 2003 3 SCC 11, where on the basis of vague allegations FIR was quashed. It was further submitted that when the complainant did not return to her matrimonial home after 9th July, 2012 then the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the Principal of Jat College, Rohtak seeking various information in order to ascertain as to whether the complainant was attending college or not, however, certain information was given but the material information was not given on the ground that the same was personal and was exempted under RTI Act. On coming to know about this application moved by the petitioner, complainant wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of Haryana alleging that her husband and father-in-law are mentally harassing and defaming her in her college by inquiring her college time, exam date, etc. This allegation has no nexus to the lis to confer jurisdiction upon the Court.