MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petition seeks quashment of proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell, North East District in case No.V-2 arising out of the complaint of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Virender Kaur. The proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell culminated into an FIR and thereafter into a charge-sheet. Accordingly, the; Court now has to consider whether the FIR and the charge-sheet can be quashed.

(2.) The grounds for making the prayer are precisely two namely-(1) No part of the alleged offence took place in Delhi and therefore neither the Delhi police nor the Delhi Courts can have jurisdiction in the matter; (2) For the same offence an FIR was registered earlier which was compromised between the parties and therefore the new complaint/FIR/charge sheet cannot be maintainable.

(3.) I take the second objection first as it relates entirely to fact. The comp a int as is available in the FIR bearing No. 249/.2002 dated 25.4.2002 Police Station Rohini can be restated in brief as under: The respondent No. 2 married the petitioner on 13.12.93. Three months after the marriage, the husband and other members of the family namely the present petitioners started taunting the respondent No. 2 for having brought insufficient dowry and also gave her beatings off and on. Mausi Sas, Surinder Kau made a demand for Rs. 40,000/- to be brought from her father and her hu sand asked her to bring money from her brother. The father-in-law Joginder Sir g'hrasked for Rs. 20,000/-. On 11.8.95,, the respondent No. 2 gave birth to a seen at a Nursing Home in Delhi and stayed in Delhi for ten months during which no one from the family of the pet itioners came to see her On her return to her in-laws' house in Punjab she again received cruelty. They made an effort to kill her on 11.2.96. She was then taken to the house of her maternal grand father at village Jalalpur, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab and from there to Delhi where the lodged a complaint which formed the basis for FIR No. 101/96 under Section s 498-A/406/34, IPC at PS Sabzi Mandi. The petitioners compromised the matter with the respondent No. 2 and assured her that they would not illtreat her in any manner. The petitioner No. 1/husband and others stayed at Delhi for some time when they filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi for quashing the FIR No. 101/96. The respondent No, 2, during their stay in Delhi, gave birth to another child. The FIR was quashed on 9.3.99 and the respondent No. 2 ret urned to her matrimonial home in Punjab with her husband/petitioner No. 1. Unfortunately on her return, the petitioners again resumed their misbehaviour and acts of cruelty. The petitione r No. 1 asked for Rs. 1,50,000 / - as the petitioners were going abroad. The father of the respondent No. 2 agreed to give Rs. 50,000/- which was collected by the petitioner No. 1 from Delhi. The cruelty continued thereafter in December 1999. The respondent No. 2 again become pregnant. The respondent No. 2 then discovered that the petitioner No. 1 was living in adultery and on this fact being brought to the notice of petitioners, Smt. Surinder Kaur, Smt. Sampuran Kaur and Smt. Malkiat Kaur, she was beaten up and locked in a room for two days. She thereafter delivered the third child. She was then taunted that her parents had not brought sufficient gifts on the birth of the child. After four days her parents gave gold and other gifts along with cash of Rs. 21,000/- which fell short of the expectations of the petitioner No. 1. Another promise by her husband to treat her well also went the same way. On 11.6.2001, the petitioner No. 1 brought the respondent No. 2 to Jalandhar to meet her parents when the petitioner No. 1 again demanded Rs. 5 lakh and threatened to kill the respondent No. 2 unless the amount was given. Petitioner No. 1 gave her beatings when her father tried to prevail upon the petitioner No. 1. Her parents got her admitted in a hospital in Jalandhar. Petitioners got a case registered against her at P.S. Tanda, Hoshiarpur, took away her three sons and filed a divorce case in Punjab. She therefore filed this complaint asking for recovery of her stridhan from the hands of the petitioners and for action against the petitioners for the cruelty.