DEVINDER SINGH NEGI Vs. SUNIL BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks consolidation of FIR No.452/1997 under Sections 498-A/201 and Sections 3,4 & 6 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 pending in the court of Smt.Swaran Kanta Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi with the complaint case No.149/2001 under Sections 406 & 120-B titled Sunil Bhandari vs. Devender Singh Negi & Ors. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Kotdwar, District Pouri Gharwal, Uttranchal.

(2.) The petitioners invoke the provisions of Sections 186 & 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Code') and says that the court in Delhi and that in Kotdwar have taken cognizance of the same offence and, therefore, they ought to be enquired into or tried by the same court. Further it is prayed that an order should be made that the Delhi court should try the two matters mentioned above.

(3.) From the nature of the two matters, the FIR and the complaint case mentioned above, it is clear that the FIR in Delhi was in respect of an offence under Section 498- A IPC along with Sections 3,4 & 6 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 whereas the complaint at Kotdwar is made only in respect of the offence under Section 406 IPC. The ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC are entirely different from the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A as well as under Sections 3,4 & 6 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961. The petitioners' counsel says that both the complaints are virtually the same and, therefore, they can be charged with the offence under Section 406 IPC by the Delhi court also. However, the fact remains that so far they have not been charged by the Delhi court under Section 406 IPC. The mere fact that allegations in the nature of an offence under Section 498-A IPC have been made in the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of Kotdwar or the mere fact that allegations in the nature of Section 406 IPC have been made in the FIR in Delhi will not be the same as saying that the subject matter of the two proceedings are the same. The offence of Section 406 has been committed at Kotdwar as the properties in question were handed over to the accused at Kotdwar where the marriage of the sister of the complainant took place. The sister of the complainant is now dead. It was the sister who was treated with cruelty by her husband and by the members of the family of her husband. Since she lived in Delhi and the offence of cruelty took place in Delhi the FIR in respect of the cruelty as well as demand for dowry have been rightly made in Delhi.